‘Can’t deny compensation saying no ticket found’: Rajasthan High Court orders Rs 8 lakh award to train accident victim kin

Case

The case stems from the tribunal’s order passed in 2022 following the petitioner’s compensation claim application filed in 2017, after the death of his son, who was onboard Mandore Express.

The railways contested the claim on the ground that the victim was not a bona fide passenger, as he was not travelling with a valid ticket.

Representing the railways, advocate V P Mathur further contended that the victim did not suffer injuries due to the untoward incident, as his body was found on the track, and therefore, the incident could not be considered an untoward incident, and said that the claim petition may be rejected.

Arguments in the railway tribunal

The Railway Tribunal, Jaipur bench, raised multiple issues regarding the father’s compensation claim.

Such as whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to a fall from the passenger-carrying train, suffered injuries, and died as a result thereof, and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) read with 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Are the applicants the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation?

After hearing the arguments of the parties, the tribunal decided that the train ticket and the case covered under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) read with 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, is against the father’s claim and dismissed the claim application.

Representing the father, advocates Ajay Shukla and Raghav Sharma submitted before the tribunal that although it had acknowledged that the applicants had discharged the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, it still went on to hold that he was not a bona fide passenger and that the case did not amount to an “untoward incident.”

They argued that the claim was wrongly rejected merely because the body was found on the railway track.

They also argued that the tribunal improperly relied on the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report, which was prepared belatedly, and was based on hearsay, and the DRM report also does not deny the death on account of being run over by the train.

Decision

The court held that from the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements, it emerges that the absence of a ticket, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the passenger being a not bona fide passenger.

“The overall evidence strongly supports the probability that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train,” the court added.

The court noted that the circumstances lend credence to the explanation that the ticket could not have been recovered owing to the severity of the injuries and condition of the body.

“Merely non-recovery of a ticket in the present facts cannot be a ground to hold the victim, as not a bona fide passenger, to deny the benefit of benevolence legislation,” the court added.

The court ruled that the legislative intent underlying Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A is unmistakably remedial and benevolent. Therefore, courts adopt a liberal and purposive interpretation that advances the object of the statute rather than frustrates it.

The court held that the mere nonrecovery of a travel ticket, especially in circumstances where the victim’s body was found in a crushed condition, cannot constitute valid grounds to repudiate a legitimate compensation claim.

The court ordered that the applicants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 8 lakh with an annual 7 percent interest.