In railway accident cases, injuries or deaths during boarding/deboarding are considered untoward incidents under the strict liability principle unless proven otherwise, shifting the burden to the railways.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in OA II U 138/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the claimants that on 03.11.2011, the deceased was traveling from Tiptur Town to Kardi by passenger (night) train with a general journey ticket No.D-99693297. Due to heavy crowd passengers, the deceased lost his balance while getting gown from the train at Karadi Railway Station, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the reason that the body was found with the head separated from the body. Only on this ground, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that it is not an untoward incident, but is a suicide. Hence, rejected the claim petition.

4. The claimants have produced the documentary evidence viz., Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the SS/RDI message to GRP/ASK, Ex.A3 is the inquest report, Ex.A4 is the copy of the computerized journey ticket dated 03.11.2011, Exs.A5 to A10 are the statements of the witnesses, Ex.A11 is the Police Final Report and Ex.A12 is the Post Mortem report.

5. On considering the evidence on record it is proved that the deceased died due to the accident. The Tribunal has observed that there are no eye witnesses. The observation made by the Tribunal is that the deceased had boarded the different train and only on assumption basis it has observed that since the head is separated from the body it is the case of suicide. Just because the dead body is found with head separated from the body, cannot always be suspected as suicide. When an accident occurs there may be whatever chances of occurring fatal injuries. What are the specific injuries that would occur cannot be said, therefore, the Tribunal’s observation is only on the basis of the assumption and presumption, which do not have any legal sanctity. But the journey ticket which was recovered from the body of the deceased proves that the deceased was bonafide passenger, therefore, the reasons given by the Tribunal are not correct and dismissing the claim petition is found to be perverse approach.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA , (2024) 9 SCC 656 in paragraph No.13 has held as under:

"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below:

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit