Lost Ticket, Not Lost Claim: Calcutta High Court Awards Rs 8 Lakh for Fatal Fall From Overcrowded Local Train

Case at a Glance

The Railway Claims Tribunal had rejected a family’s claim for the death of a man who allegedly fell from a crowded Budge Budge local, holding there was no untoward incident and that he was not a bona fide passenger. The Calcutta High Court reversed it, holding that railway claims are decided on preponderance of probability, that a missing ticket does not by itself defeat the claim, and directing the Railways to deposit Rs 8 lakh with 6% interest.

According to the claimants, Sharawan Kumar boarded the Down Budge Budge local at Brace Bridge on 16 July 2022 with a co-passenger after visiting the Kalighat temple, and fell from the overcrowded train between Akra and Nangi stations. He was taken to ESI Hospital, Nangi, and then to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, where he died on 18 July 2022.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata, dismissed the claim on 19 August 2024, finding no untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and that he was not a bona fide passenger. Before the High Court, the Railways pointed to the absence of a ticket, of any driver or station master report and of an entry in the RPF diary, and to discrepancies in the co-passenger’s evidence.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a railway accident claim be rejected because no ticket was recovered and there was no official report of the fall?

Preponderance of Probability and the Missing Ticket

The Court stressed that railway claims legislation is beneficial, so claimants “are not required to prove accident beyond reasonable doubt.” It found the co-passenger’s account of the fall unshaken in cross-examination and corroborated by the post-mortem report, the police report under Section 174 CrPC and his statement to the RPF.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court held that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of bona fide travel, and that the burden then shifts to the Railways. The co-passenger said the deceased had bought a return ticket from an automatic vending machine, and the Court accepted that the purse and ticket were likely lost in the incident. It concluded that the death was an untoward incident and that the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 124A.

What the Court Actually Held

• Railway claims are decided on preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Absence of a ticket does not by itself defeat a claim of bona fide travel.
• The death was an untoward incident and the Tribunal’s judgment of 19 August 2024 was set aside.
• The Railways must deposit Rs 8,00,000 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim, within eight weeks of communication of the order.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It protects families of commuters who die in falls from crowded suburban trains.
• It reaffirms Rina Devi on the effect of a missing ticket.
• It shows how consistent eyewitness evidence and police records can establish an untoward incident.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Claimants

• Lead the evidence of any co-passenger and file post-mortem and Section 174 CrPC reports.
• Explain the likely loss of the ticket in the incident.

For the Railways

• Bare reliance on the absence of a ticket or RPF entry may not discharge the shifted burden.
• Bring specific evidence if a proviso to Section 124A is relied upon.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

It found no untoward incident and held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

Consistent eyewitness evidence corroborated by medical and police records, and the principle that a missing ticket is not fatal.

Rs 8,00,000 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim.

Conclusion