Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

Absence of Ticket Doesn't Negate Claim: Supreme Court Grants ₹8 Lakhs in Railway Accident Case

30 August 2024 11:14 AM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, granting ₹8 lakhs in compensation to the family of a deceased passenger who died after falling from a moving train. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, clarified the burden of proof in cases where a passenger’s body is found on railway premises without a ticket.

The case concerned the tragic death of Swapan Kumar Saha, who allegedly fell from the Kanchanjanga Express on September 5, 2003. His body was recovered three days later near Dolma Gate, leading his sister, Doli Rani Saha, to file a compensation claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim, citing the absence of a ticket and insufficient evidence. The Gauhati High Court upheld this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court identified several errors in the judgments of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court. The primary issue was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Citing its earlier ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), the Court reiterated that the absence of a ticket does not automatically negate the possibility of a claim under the Railways Act, 1989. The Court noted that once the claimant files an affidavit stating the relevant facts, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.

The Supreme Court also addressed the High Court's rejection of the Investigating Officer's (IO) report, which supported the claim that the deceased had died due to a fall from the train. The Court observed that the IO's findings, including the post-mortem report indicating death due to head injuries caused by blunt force, were sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

The Court noted, "A margin of error of about half a day in cases where compensation is at issue is not disproportionate, where the evidence is otherwise corroborated by the material on record." This statement was crucial in countering the High Court’s reliance on minor discrepancies in the time of death estimation.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal position regarding compensation in railway accidents had been clarified in the Rina Devi case, where it was held that the burden of proof initially lies with the claimant, but once the affidavit is filed, it shifts to the Railways. The Court found that the Railways failed to discharge this burden, thereby entitling the appellant to compensation.

In line with the decision in Rina Devi, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to ₹8 lakhs, the amount prescribed under the current Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended. The Court also directed that the compensation be paid by September 30, 2024, failing which an interest rate of 6% per annum would apply from the date of the order until payment.

This judgment reinforces the legal principles surrounding compensation claims for railway accidents, particularly in cases where a ticket is not found with the deceased. By overturning the lower courts' decisions, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the burden of proof and the importance of considering all evidence, even when it involves approximations. This ruling is expected to influence future cases involving similar claims under the Railways Act.

Date of Decision: August 9, 2024

Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India

Similar News