He Was Bona Fide Passenger: Jharkhand HC Awards ₹8L Compensation To Widow Of Man Who Died After Falling From Moving Train

The Court was hearing a Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal where the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Application of the Appellants seeking compensation amounting to Rs.8 lakhs along with interest on account of death of the deceased treating him not be a bona fide passenger and the incident as not be an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Even if the ticket was not recovered from his person while preparing the inquest report of the deceased. Mere filing of the affidavit on behalf of the claimant is sufficient to raise the presumption that the deceased was bona fide passenger. Neither oral nor any documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent to show that the deceased was not bona fide passenger.”

Advocate Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha appeared for the Appellant and CGC Ravi Prakash appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

In the present case, the wife of the deceased filed a claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. She stated that her husband boarded the Howrah Gaya Express at Sahibganj with a valid ticket purchased by his brother to travel to Pirpainti Station. As the train neared Pirpainti, Shambhu moved towards the door to disembark. Due to a crowd of passengers jostling near the door, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the train between Ammapali Halt and Pirpainti Station, suffering fatal injuries. An investigation by the rail police confirmed the incident, and an Unnatural Death (U.D.) case was registered.

The Court observed, “Initial burden having been discharged on behalf of the appellants, the burden of proof is shifted upon the respondent to prove the fact that the deceased was not bona fide passenger.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India versus Rina Devi (2019) and quoted, “…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.”

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others (2008) and quoted, “Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one…”

Accordingly, the Court said that since the untoward incident had taken place, therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lacs along with interest.

Finally, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Kavita Devi v. Union of India