Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.M. MODAK, J
Shri Manohar s/o. Tukaram Bhelave – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.107 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Kaustubh U. Fule
For the Respondents: Ms. Ashwini S. Athalye
The absence of a railway ticket does not preclude a deceased from being recognized as a bonafide passenger under the strict liability principle of the Railways Act.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124 and 124A - Appeal allowed against the dismissal of claim for compensation due to absence of evidence showing deceased as a bonafide passenger - Court emphasized on strict liability principle and clarified that lack of ticket does not negate status as passenger. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
(B) Claims under Railway Act - Burden of proof regarding bonafide passenger status rests with the claimant, not solely dependent on possession of a ticket. Relevant cases cited to support legal argument. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Claim for compensation was filed by parents of the deceased, who was alleged to have fallen from a train. Investigation found no evidence of ticket or mobile phone on the deceased. The Tribunal dismissed the claim citing lack of proof that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
Findings of Court:
The judgment was set aside, determining the deceased as a bonafide passenger under strict liability principles of the Railways Act, awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to claimants.
Issues: The main issues were the burden of proof regarding the deceased's passenger status and whether the absence of a ticket meant he was unauthorised.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that absence of a ticket does not by itself make a passenger unauthorised, emphasizing the principle of strict liability applicable under Railways Act.
Result: Appeal allowed, compensation granted to claimants.
01] Heard learned Advocate Shri Fule for the appellants and learned Advocate Ms. Athalye for the respondent. Matter is heard at the admission stage by consent. Admit.
02] The Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) as per the judgment dated 12th January, 2018 was pleased to dismiss the claim filed by the parents of the deceased-Tushar. It was dismissed for the reason that there was no evidence to show that Tushar was a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal has given various reasons prior to arriving at that conclusion. The correctness of the said decision is challenged by the appellants.
03] The appellants are the parents of deceased-Tushar. Deceased- Tushar was preparing for engineering course at Nagpur. On the fateful day i.e. 15th April, 2014, he was travelling from Nagpur to Tumsar at his native place through unnamed train. He could not get a seat and that is why he was standing near door of the compartment. When the train reaches near village Pahuni in between Bhandara and Khat Railway Station, he fell down. He succumbed to the injuries. The information was given by Loko Pilot of Train No.12860 at 06:52 hrs. and accordingly Bhandara Police Station have carried out the inquest panchanama on 16th April, 2014. Crime details form was also prepared by Police Inspector attached to the Police Station, Bhandara. On the same day, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and the doctor has opined that probable cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock with injuries to vital organs.
04] The parents got knowledge about the death on 19th April, 2014. Thereafter, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. Father- Manohar Bhelave gave evidence. Whereas on behalf of railway administration, one witness by name Ajay Chahande was examined. On 15th April, 2014, he was working as Deputy Station Superintendent at Khat Railway Station. Statutory investigation was also carried out. The statements of the parents were recorded. As they have not seen the incident, they could not throw much light as to how accident took place. Documentary evidence was also given before the Tribunal. With the assistance of both the learned Advocates, I have perused that judgment. The Tribunal has emphasized on absence of railway ticket found during personal search of the dead body. Emphasis was also laid on not finding out the mobile phone with the dead body. It was material because the father has said that prior to the incident, there was a communication in between them on mobile.
05] In paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, though the Tribunal has referred to one Suresh Bhoyar as AW-1, his name is incorrect. It ought to have been Manohar. The Tribunal has found his evidence as vague and unspecific. As per the evidence of RW-1, the dead body of unidentified person cut by railway is lying in between up and down railway track in between Khat and Bhandara. There is a distance of 300 meters in between two spots. The Tribunal observed that the incident is not of a fall from a train. It is for the reason that there were no eye witnesses. Even the Tribunal has laid emphasis on the conduct of the parents in not making inquiry about whereabouts of the son in between 15th April, 2014 to 19th April, 2014. The Tribunal also laid emphasis that the dead body was not lying unnoticed for a long period, but it was noticed in sufficient period. For the above reasons, the claim was refused.
06] According to the learned Advocate for the appellants, there is principle of strict liability as contemplated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the said Act”). According to him, his case is covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act. In order to buttress his submission that absence of railway ticket does not make the passenger unauthorised passenger, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Jaipal Pradhan Vs. Union of India and Others , 2020(4) T.A.C. 202 (P.&H.). Even he relied upon the observat
