Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – s.16 – Railways Act, 1989 – s.124 – The victim-deceased is stated to have purchased a second-class ticket at Indore Railway Junction – It is alleged that due to overcrowding, he was pushed out of the running train, resulting in fatal head injuries – Victim died – The appellants, being the widow and minor son of the deceased, sought compensation before the Tribunal – The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased was a bonafide passenger – The High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal – Correctness: Held: Firstly, the initial burden which is cast on the claimants to prove that the deceased had travelled in the train has been discharged by the sworn statement made by first claimant (wife of deceased); Secondly, the High Court by relying upon the report of DRM report (R/1) has arrived at a conclusion that death of 1st claimants husband would fall within the purview of expression ‘untoward incident’ as defined u/s.124 (A) of the Act; Thirdly, the railway ticket which formed part of the police report stood unrebutted; Fourthly, the very same report also disclosed the Chief Booking Supervisor, Indore had verified the ticket produced alongwith the report of the police and certified that ticket had been issued from Indore Station – This would clearly satisfy the requirement of the expression ‘passenger’ as contemplated under Clause (ii) to Explanation to s.124 (A) of the Act and deceased being declared as a ‘passenger’ travelling in the train – In the considered view of this Court, the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court would not be sustainable – The claim petition is allowed in part and the Respondents are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants-applicant. [Paras 12, 16] Railways Act, 1989 – Proceedings u/s.124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials – Welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities – Shifting of evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration: Held: The proceedings u/s.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 – Where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration – The absence of a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the claimant’s version – This principle shall guide all future tribunals and High Courts in construing s.124-A, so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment. [Paras 14, 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.