Missing ticket no bar: Delhi High Court orders payout to kin of man killed in 2016 train accident

“The tribunal, however, proceeded to reject the claim primarily on the ground of non-recovery of the ticket and on certain inferences drawn from the location of the body and the nature of injuries. Such an approach, in the considered view of this court, reflects an unwarranted elevation of conjecture over evidence,” the Delhi High Court’s April 4 order read.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri directed that the matter be sent back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the amount of compensation. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Ticket bought in presence of father’

• The Delhi High Court mentioned that the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, arise out of beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents.
• In such matters, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required while considering applications for condonation of delay so that genuine claims are not defeated on technical grounds.
• Once it is established that the victim was travelling by train and had fallen therefrom, the incident would squarely fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the Act.
• The Delhi High Court allowed the condonation of the 1,326-day delay in filing the appeal, noting that the man’s parents have successfully established sufficient cause for the delay.
• It was held that the liability of the railways stands attracted, and the parents of the victims are consequently entitled to compensation under the Act.
• It was also found that the tribunal proceeded to reject the claim primarily on the ground of non-recovery of the ticket and on certain inferences drawn from the location of the body and the nature of injuries. The high court said that such an approach reflects an unwarranted elevation of conjecture over evidence.
• The victim’s father has deposed by way of affidavit that his son had purchased a journey ticket from Kanpur Central to New Delhi in his presence, and had boarded the said train.
• It was noted that the said testimony was clear and consistent, and significantly, the record reveals that this assertion has remained unchallenged.
• The Delhi High Court set aside the tribunal’s order and directed that the matter be remanded back to the tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the parents of the victim.
• The high court further directed the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months.

Travelling to New Delhi

The case stemmed from the accident on July 5, 2016, involving Pinku, who was travelling from Kanpur Central to New Delhi by the Bhagalpur-New Delhi Express train, allegedly with a valid second-class ticket, and while undertaking the said journey, he fell near Dadri Railway Station, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries, and he died on the spot.

His parents then approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, which passed an order on November 14, 2017, dismissing their claim application on the ground that the victim was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the alleged incident an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989.

Arguments by parties

Appearing for the claimants, advocate Rajan Sood argued that the appellants are poor and illiterate persons, and belong to an economically weaker section and, due to paucity of funds, were unable to get in contact with a counsel and obtain timely legal advice.

Sood mentioned that the tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite sufficient evidence establishing that the victim was a bona fide passenger and had suffered an accidental fall from a running train. It was, however, submitted that the journey ticket was not recovered from the victim, but his father claimed that his son undertook the journey on the strength of a valid ticket, which was purchased in his presence.

On the contrary, representing the state, advocate Shubhra Parashar submitted that the victim was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found on him during the inquest proceedings.

It was stated that the nature of injuries recorded in the postmortem report, and the location of the body near the crossing, indicate that he was not travelling in the train, and did not suffer an accidental fall. He further contended that the case does not fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident” and the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the parents.