AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Application No.O.A. (llu)/NGP/2015/0078, whereby the claim application was rejected by the Railway Tribunal on the ground that the claimants failed to point out that the victim caused injury in an untoward incident and was not possessing the valid ticket at the time of accident.
The facts in brief of the present matter are as under: On 22.11.2014, the deceased Rajababu along with his cousin brother, namely Shaikh Mazhar Shaikh Hasan, reached the Railway Station, Nagpur and purchased the general class ticket by paying the fair charges of Rs.105/-. The said ticket was kept in the possession of the cousin of the brother. Accordingly, they have started their journey towards Akola. The deceased and his cousin brother, due to heavy rush in the general bogie of the train, boarded in different bogies of the train.
The train when reached to the railway station, Katepurna between Pole number 614/23–25, the deceased was fell down from the running train and sustained severe injuries. Therefore, he was taken to the Government College and Hospital, Akola and succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. After this incident, the marg has been registered vide No.67/2014 under Section 174 of CRPC by GRT Akola on 22.11.2014. As per the crime details, the cause of accident was railway and spot recorded at Pole No.612/23–25 between Katepurna Railway Station and Murtizapur Railway Station dated 22.11.2014. As per the inquest panchanama, (A–5), dead body was lying on cement table in a straight condition. The left side of the cheek, the injury seen, on the left side arm pit large grievance injury was seen from where blood was oozing and left hand arm injured and was broken from elbow. The forehead of the deceased also caused injury. The right leg was in a straight condition and left leg crushed down from knee. It is also recorded that the panchas stated that the deceased died due to railway accident. However, to know exact reason of death, the dead body was sent to the General Hospital, Akola.
In light of this factual aspect, the claimants applied for compensation before the Railway Tribunal. Before the railway Tribunal, Sheikh Mazhar Shaikh Hasan (AW2) filed his affidavit stating that deceased was his cousin brother. On 21.11.2014, he had gone to Nagpur along with the deceased to attend ‘URS’ of ‘Taj Baba’. He then deposed about the purchase of ticket and boarding in the different general bogies of Geetanjali Express bearing train No.12860 dated 22.11.2014.
He further stated that when he reached to the Railway Station Akola, he could not locate the deceased. But, at that time, he was under impression that he might have left the Railway Station and will meet at house. But after reaching to the house, he found that deceased did not reach to the house. Therefore, the inquiry was made and after inquiry, they got knowledge that untoward accident has been occurred in the matter and the deceased has been hospitalized.
In this regard, the DRM report is available on record dated 31.03.2015. As per this report, it is recorded that the deceased was not found with a valid railway ticket. According to them, the deceased was not a valid passenger of the train. However, while drawing the conclusion, on the basis of documentary evidence made available before this officer, it is specifically recorded that the deceased was travelling in a Gitanjali Express in general coach and might be standing near the door of the bogie and due to the jerk, he fell down and caused death. As such, the DRM Report specifically states that the death was caused during the hours of travelling of the deceased in the train Gitanjali Express.
As per the law laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, it is categorically held that mere presence of a body on the railway premises may not be the conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger and for that purpose, compensation will not be maintainable. However, mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bonafide passenger.
Here in the present case, from the evidence which is available on record and as well as the DRM report, it is clear that the deceased was travelling in a train and the evidence placed on record by applicant clearly shows that the railway ticket was purchased by them before they started their journey.
It is pertinent to note that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi (supra), initial burden will be on the claimant to establish the fact that they have purchased the ticket and were boarding in the train. Here in the present case from the evidence which was brought on record by the applicant, it is clear that initial burden has been discharged by the applicant by establishing the fact that by purchasing the railway ticket, they have boarded the train and the incident which was occurred during the period of travelling hours.
In this regard recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the view expressed in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi (supra) and in case of Rajni and another vs. Union of India and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2182. The relevant paragraphs are helpful to decide the present appeal. Same reads as under:
“9.The legal position is not in dispute: Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault regime for "untoward incidents", but compensation remains predicated on the victim being a "passenger". For present purposes, Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A would be relevant in the background of same having been denied by railway authorities. It reads as follows:
"Explanation (ii) 'passenger' includes a person son who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident." (emphasis supplied)
In Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra), this Court affirmed that compensation under Sections 124/124-A is payable "whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault" and clarified two facets namely: (i) the regime is one of strict (no-fault) liability, with exceptions confined to the proviso to Section 124-A; and (ii) mere non- recovery of a ticket from the victim's person is not ipso facto fatal where the claimant lays a credible prima facie foundation, upon which the onus may shift to the Railways. The central inquiry, therefore, is whether the appellants had first discharged the threshold burden of proving the fact that deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train No. 12465 (Indore to Ujjain) so as to trigger any shifting of onus on the railway authorities.
11.This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, has held that the burden of proof would shift to the Railways once, the Claimant-Appellant filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the railway authorities. It has been further held:-
"15.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 Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198], 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: (SCC p. 588, para 29)
"29.We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that 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 of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly." (emphasis supplied)
16.In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted.
17.Further, the report of the IO indicates the details mentioned in the post-mortem report. It states that the cause of death was due to an injury sustained on the head and that all injuries were ante- mortem and caused by "blunt force impact". It also states that forty-eight to seventy-two hours had passed since the time of death.
14.Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race.”
In view of the well-settled position of law and the fact that the appellants have discharged his initial burden and the document which are prepared at the instance of the police machinery and the DRM report supported the fact that the deceased has boarded the train, and during his travelling, the untoward accident was occurred and the death was caused in the matter. In my view, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) and in case of Rajni vs Union of India (supra), applicants has proved their case that accident was an untoward accident and, therefore, they are entitled for the compensation in the matter.
Learned Railway Tribunal though recorded this factual position but mainly on the ground that the deceased was not found with a valid railway ticket has denied the compensation in the matter. But the view expressed by the learned Tribunal in the matter is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The documentary evidence which is available on records seems to be not properly considered by the Railway Tribunal. Hence, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence in view of above, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by Railway Tribunal, Nagpur dated 08.01.2016 in Claim Application No.O.A. (llu)/NGP/2015/0078, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The respondent- Railway Administration is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants.
iv) The respondent Railway Administration is directed to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of three months before the Registry of this Court.
Both the appellants are entitled for equal share from the amount of compensation awarded by this Court.
The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.