State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

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

Latest Legal News