Railways Act, 1989 – ss. 123(c) and 124 – Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 – r. 7 – Claim for compensation – Victim-deceased fell down from the running train between platform and track and sustained grave injuries including decapitation and amputation of right hand – Deceased died on the spot – FIR was registered – Inquest report and final report submitted clearly revealed that death was an outcome of untoward railway incident – Claim petition was filed before the Railways claims Tribunal – Claims Tribunal held that appellants had failed to prove the death of deceased in an untoward incident and he was not the bonafide passenger making the Railway liable for grant of compensation – High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal – On appeal, held: On perusal of the allegations of the FIR, inquest report, final report and the investigation report prepared under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003, the allegation regarding an untoward incident, as pleaded in the claim petition, is fully established and supported by the testimony of AW1, son of the deceased – Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by the Claims Tribunal and the High Court are without considering the documents of the investigation and the final report – As far as issue whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger is concerned, the ocular statement of AW1 that he had procured valid train ticket and given to deceased, the averments made in the claim petition was testified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiterated that ticket for deceased was purchased and sent him off at Station – The said averment finds support from inquest report by inquest officer, final report by investigation officer – Considering the material brought on record, the initial burden that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprove the said fact – Railways had not discharged the burden – Therefore, the Railway Administration liable to pay compensation prescribed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of the allegations of the FIR, inquest report, final report and the investigation report prepared under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003, the allegation regarding an untoward incident, as pleaded in the claim petition, is fully established and supported by the testimony of AW1, son of the deceased. Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by the Claims Tribunal and the High Court are without considering the documents of the investigation and the final report accepted by the DRM on 7.6.2017 and therefore such findings are perverse and set-aside. [Para 17][407-G-H; 408-A]
2. Now, reverting to the issue whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? In this regard, the ocular statement of AW1, son of the deceased, who procured a valid train ticket for travel and handed it over to the deceased is on record. As per the statement of AW1, the averments made in the claim petition have been testified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiterated that ticket for deceased was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10/- and sent him off at Station. The deceased fell down at Railway Station. The said averment of the claim petition and the statement of Station Master finds support from inquest report prepared by the Inquest Officer on the date of incidence i.e. 27.9.2014 and the final report prepared by the Investigation Officer, Railway Police Station Trichy on 14.11.2014. The said reports have been referred to in the investigation report dated 7.6.2017. Considering the material brought on record, in view of this Court, the initial burden that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprove the said fact. Nothing has been placed before Claims Tribunal or brought on record during the course of hearing that the Railway Administration has discharged the burden of not having the valid railway ticket with the deceased passenger, except to say that during recovery ticket was not found. In absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed. [Para 18][408-B-F]
3. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that as per law laid down by this Court in Rina Devi, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that victimdeceased died in an untoward incident which took place on 27.9.2014 while travelling in a passenger Train No. 5684 and he was a bona fide passenger. The findings adversely recorded by the Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are perverse, therefore set-aside. In view of this Court, as per the provisions contained in Section 124A of Railways Act and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the appellants are entitled to claim compensation. [Para 19][408-FH]
4. The claimants are held entitled to seek compensation, but during hearing, it is brought to notice that after the date of accident and filing the claim petition on 25.7.2016, the Compensation Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017. Therefore, the amount of compensation has to be arrived at while taking into account the amended Rules. The appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. [Paras 20, 23][409A-B; 411-E-F] Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 : [2018]
4 SCR 417; UOI v. Radha Yadav (2019) 3 SCC 410 : [2019] 1 SCR 741 – relied on.
Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828; Kamrunnissa v. Union of India (2019) 12 SCC 391; Union of India v. Dilip and Others 2019 SCC Online SC 2119 – referred to.
Raj Kumari v. Union of India 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96; Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.