O R D E R

Table of Contents A. Background and submissions ................................................................................... 2 B. Decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court ................................ 4 C. The errors in the judgments of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court . 6 D. Compensation and interest ........................................................................................ 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2024.08.13 Reason:

A. Background and submissions

1. The case of the appellant is that her brother, Swapan Kumar Saha, suffered a fatal fall from a moving train, (No 5658; Kanchanjanga Express) at KM 373/9, Dolma Gate on 5 September 2003, resulting in his death. The body of the deceased was recovered three days after the incident, on 8 September 2003.

2. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 before the Guwahati Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal1 seeking compensation of Rs 4,00,000 arising from the death of her brother. By its judgment dated 17 March 2009, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, concluding that the deceased was not travelling on the train. The review petition against this judgment was dismissed on 29 September 2010.

3. The decision of the Tribunal was assailed in first appeal before the Gauhati High Court. The High Court dismissed the first appeal by its judgment dated 7 January 2014 in MFA No 288 of 2010. A review petition against this judgment (bearing Review Petition No 41 of 2014) was also dismissed on 13 November 2014. The appeal arises from this judgment of the High Court.

4. We have heard Mr Abhinav Hansaria, counsel, in support of the appeal and Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr Ishaan Swarana Sharma, counsel, for the respondent.

5. The submission of the appellant is that in concluding that the deceased was not travelling in the train on 5 September 2023, both the High Court and the Tribunal

1 “Tribunal”

have overlooked the findings contained in the final report dated 6 November 2003 submitted by the Investigating Officer2 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rangiya. According to the submission, the above report also includes an extract from the post-mortem report which indicated that the cause of death was due to head injuries resulting from a “blunt force impact”. The estimated time of death was determined to be between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before the conduct of the post-mortem.

6. In support of the claim that compensation ought to be awarded to the appellant, Mr Hansaria submitted that:

a. It is not necessary to produce a valid ticket to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989,3 in view of the decision in Union of India v Rina Devi4;

b. The law laid down by this Court in successive decisions has clarified the test by which the amount of compensation under the Railways Act must be computed, including the entitlement of the claimant in case of an increase in the permissible amount; and c. The appellant should be awarded interest as admissible in law.

7. In response, the respondent argued that the appellant had not provided a reason for the delay in the discovery of the body of the deceased. It argued that other employees of the Railways were bound to have chanced upon the body in the

2 “IO”

3 “Railways Act”

4 (2019) 3 SCC 572

days after the alleged date of death. It supported the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court.

8. Written submissions have been submitted on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent.

B. Decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court

9. Before turning to the issue at hand, it is necessary to briefly advert to the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

a. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question on the date of incident;

b. Whether the incident as alleged in the claim app