Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by the legal heirs of a deceased passenger and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s rejection of their claim for death compensation, holding that mere non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot defeat a claim under the Railways Act once credible evidence establishes bona fide travel. Reaffirming that railway accident compensation is governed by strict liability and liberal interpretation, the Court held that the Tribunal adopted an unduly technical approach — “absence of ticket is not decisive”; matter remanded for award of statutory compensation.
Court’s decision
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reversed the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and held that the initial burden on claimants stood discharged through affidavit evidence. While affirming the Tribunal’s conclusion that the death occurred in an “untoward incident,” the Court remanded the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal solely for computation and award of compensation in terms of the Railway Accident Compensation Rules, 1990, directing expeditious disbursal.
Facts
The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for a fatal railway accident that occurred on 08.05.2015. It was claimed that the deceased had travelled from Delhi to Bhiwani on the Kalindi Express after purchasing a valid journey ticket. According to the claim, due to a sudden jerk and heavy rush inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train at Old Delhi Railway Station and died on the spot.
At the time of recovery of the body, the alleged journey ticket could not be traced. The Tribunal, while accepting that the deceased had fallen from a train and that the incident qualified as an “untoward incident,” rejected the claim solely on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger due to non-recovery of the ticket. This led to the present appeal before the High Court.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger despite non-recovery of the journey ticket, and whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the compensation claim after having already held that the death resulted from an untoward incident under Section 123 of the Railways Act.
Appellants’ arguments
The appellants argued that the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach inconsistent with the beneficial object of the Railways Act. They submitted that the deceased had indeed purchased a valid ticket, which was lost during the accident. In support, they relied on the testimony and affidavit of a witness who deposed that he had personally accompanied the deceased to Delhi Railway Station and had seen him purchase the ticket for travel from Delhi to Bhiwani.
It was argued that once such affidavit evidence was produced, the initial burden stood discharged and the onus shifted to the Railways to disprove bona fide travel. The appellants contended that rejection of the claim solely due to absence of a ticket was contrary to settled Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Respondent’s arguments
The Union of India supported the Tribunal’s judgment and contended that the claimant failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was argued that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and that only an old ticket for a different route was found in his diary, giving rise to a legitimate inference that no ticket for the relevant journey had been purchased. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal’s factual appreciation warranted no interference.
Analysis of the law
The Court analysed Sections 123 and 124A of the Railways Act, reiterating that the statute is a beneficial legislation intended to provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and their families. It emphasised that liability under Section 124A is strict and does not depend on proof of negligence.
On the question of bona fide passenger status, the Court noted that while the initial burden lies on the claimant, this burden is not onerous and can be discharged by filing an affidavit explaining the circumstances of travel. Once such evidence is produced, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent material. Non-recovery of a ticket, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof against the claimant.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied squarely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which clarified that mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status if surrounding circumstances and affidavit evidence support the claim. The Supreme Court had held that claims under the Railways Act must be decided on a case-by-case basis with a liberal approach, keeping in mind the welfare objective of the statute. Applying this precedent, the High Court held that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law.
Court’s reasoning
The Court observed that the witness examined by the appellants gave a consistent and plausible account of the deceased’s journey, including purchase of the ticket in his presence. The witness had no personal interest in the claim and his testimony remained unshaken. The Court held that this affidavit evidence sufficiently discharged the initial burden of proof.
It found the Tribunal’s inference — that the ticket would necessarily have been recovered from the diary if purchased — to be speculative and contrary to human conduct, especially in accident situations. Having already held that the deceased fell from a train, the Tribunal erred in denying compensation on a narrow technicality.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dismissing the claim. The Court remanded the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal for the limited purpose of awarding statutory compensation in accordance with the Railway Accident Compensation Rules, 1990, and directed that the amount be released within four weeks of determination.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the liberal and claimant-friendly approach governing railway accident compensation. It reiterates that loss of a journey ticket in an accident cannot, by itself, deprive dependants of compensation and that tribunals must focus on the substance of evidence rather than rigid technicalities. The judgment strengthens the application of strict liability under the Railways Act and aligns tribunal practice with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Case law references
- Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019): Absence of ticket not conclusive; affidavit can discharge initial burden of proving bona fide travel. Applied to overturn Tribunal’s rejection.
- Strict liability under Section 124A: Compensation follows once untoward incident is established, irrespective of fault. Applied to entitle claimants to relief.
- Beneficial interpretation of Railways Act: Welfare statutes must be construed liberally to advance their object. Applied to correct Tribunal’s technical approach.
FAQs
1. Can compensation be denied if a railway ticket is not recovered from the deceased?
No. Courts have held that non-recovery of a ticket alone does not negate bona fide passenger status if affidavit and circumstantial evidence support the claim.
2. What is an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act?
It includes accidental falls from trains. Once such an incident is established, compensation follows under strict liability principles.
3. Who bears the burden of proof in railway accident claims?
The claimant bears an initial, light burden, which can be discharged through an affidavit. The burden then shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.
