Jharkhand High Court Overturns Railway Tribunal Decision; Holds Deceased Passenger to Be a Bona Fide Traveler Despite Absence of Ticket: “The Mere Absence of a Ticket Cannot Negative the Claim of Bona Fide Passenger”

Court’s Decision:

The Jharkhand High Court overturned the Railway Tribunal’s decision and held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, thereby granting compensation to his dependents. The court directed the respondent to pay ₹8 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition up to the date of the order and 6% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment.

Facts:

The claimants filed an application under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for compensation due to the accidental death of the deceased while he was traveling on a train. It was claimed that the deceased, after purchasing a valid 2nd class ticket, boarded the Howrah-Gaya Express train. When the train was approaching the Pirpainti Station, the deceased reached near the gate to alight, but due to intense jostling among passengers, he lost his balance and fell from the running train, sustaining fatal injuries. The Railway Tribunal dismissed the claim on the grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, citing the absence of a journey ticket during the inquest report.

Issues:

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the alleged date of the incident?
2. Whether the applicants or dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation? If yes, then the quantum of compensation.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The claimants argued that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as he had a valid ticket purchased by his brother. They asserted that the ticket was lost during the incident and could not be recovered. The death occurred due to an accidental fall from the train, making it an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. They sought compensation of ₹8 lakhs along with interest from the date of application.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents contended that no untoward incident occurred on the said date and location. They argued that the deceased might have been run over while crossing the track, and the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger could not be substantiated due to the lack of a valid ticket. They further stated that the police report was based on conjecture and lacked concrete evidence to show that the deceased was traveling on the train.

Analysis of the Law:

The court relied on the provisions of Sections 123, 124, and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define ‘untoward incident’ and provide for compensation. The court emphasized that compensation is payable whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect, or fault on the part of the railway administration. The Railway Claims Tribunal’s decision was found to be in conflict with the principle of strict liability.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, where it was held that even in the absence of a ticket, an affidavit of relevant facts can raise a presumption of the deceased being a bona fide passenger. The burden then shifts to the railway administration to rebut this presumption.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court held that the Railway Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim by solely relying on the absence of the ticket. It observed that the affidavit filed by the claimant, detailing the circumstances of the travel, was sufficient to raise a presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The respondents failed to discharge the shifted burden of proof to rebut this presumption.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the Tribunal’s decision and directed the railway administration to pay ₹8 lakhs with interest as compensation, observing that strict liability under the Railways Act applies even in the absence of a ticket. The court reiterated that the Act should be interpreted in a liberal manner to serve its beneficial purpose.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the principle that the absence of a ticket cannot be the sole ground to reject claims of compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. It clarifies that affidavits from claimants can be sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, thereby protecting the rights of dependents in similar cases.

Also Read – Orissa High Court Acquits Accused Due to Insufficient Evidence and Contradictory Testimonies in Murder Case Involving Unlawful Assembly and Homicide Charges