The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

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