P. Amsa vs Union of India

R. Mahadevan, J.—The appeal is filed by the mother of the deceased challenging the rejection of her claim of compensation for the death of her son P. Sathya in a rail accident. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal was that her son was working as a Turner in a Private Engineering Workshop at Chennai and she came to know through the Railway Police that her son died due to the injuries sustained by him due to falling down accidentally from a moving train and hence, she filed the claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

The Railways filed reply statement contending that the deceased had attempted to board into the moving train and fallen down due to his own careless and negligent act and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no valid ticket was found in possession of the deceased and hence, the Railway is absolved from its liability.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, though found that there was an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the deceased P. Sathya while travelling in one of the electric trains, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as he was not in possession of a valid ticket, but in possession of an expired season ticket in the name of one Kumaraguru.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has erred in placing the burden of proof on the appellant regarding the status of bona fide passenger of the deceased and erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

Learned counsel for the Railways would submit that the Tribunal has properly analysed the evidence available on record and has come to a right conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, the order of the Tribunal need not be interfered with.

On going through the entire materials available on record, it is clear that the Tribunal has mainly relied upon Ex.R1, a message from the Station Master to come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In Ex.R1, it is stated that the deceased was in possession of an old season ticket in the name of E. Kumaraguru, a resident of Thirumullavoyil.

In Union Of India Owning Southern Railway rep by its Union of India (UOI) Vs. G. Loganayaki, V. Yuvarani, V. Rajesh and V. Dinesh, , it has been held that

burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket is impossible to be discharged by the dependants who can have no means of knowledge about the ticket purchased by the deceased.

In The Union of India Owning Southern Railways by its General Manager v. R.J. Simpson 2012-3-L.W. 889 : (2012(2) MWN (CIVIL) 762) it has been held that the burden of proving that deceased had valid train ticket cannot be put on his dependants and the presumption would be in favour of the deceased unless the same is rebutted by Railways.

In the case on hand, recovery of an old ticket standing in the name of a different person is projected as rebuttal for the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is beyond one''s normal imagination that a person would possess an expired season ticket of another. It is also not the case of the Railways that the deceased was a pickpocket to possess belongings of somebody else. Further, the Railways, having recovered such a season ticket with an address, have not taken any steps to establish the mode as to how the said season ticket reached the deceased. Therefore, the recovery of an expired season ticket of a different person from the deceased cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

In view of the above, this court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to the compensation for the death of her son. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/= is awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent is directed to deposit the award amount with interest with the Railway Claims Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs.