Non-Recovery Of Ticket Not Conclusive Of Being 'Ticketless Traveler'; Benefit Of Doubt In Untoward Incidents Favours Claimants: Calcutta High Court

"Although no ticket was found from the possession of the victim it should not be presumed that he was a ticketless traveller... when doubt arises as to whether victim was bona fide passenger with ticket or not the benefit of doubt should go in favour of claimants," Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that the mere non-recovery of a journey ticket from a deceased passenger's body is not sufficient to dismiss a compensation claim.

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed that in cases of "untoward incidents" under the Railways Act, 1989, the benefit of doubt regarding the bona fide status of a passenger must lean in favor of the claimants, especially when the Railways fails to discharge its burden of proof.

The appellants, the family of the deceased Harun Al Rasid, challenged an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata, which had dismissed their claim for compensation. The deceased allegedly fell from the Padatik SF Express on the night of September 22, 2021, due to heavy overcrowding and a sudden jerk. The Tribunal had rejected the claim primarily on the grounds that no journey ticket was recovered from the body and no eye-witnesses to the fall were produced by the claimants.

The primary question before the court was whether the non-recovery of a ticket from the deceased's person automatically rendered him a ticketless traveler. The court was also called upon to determine if the Railways had discharged its burden to prove that the death was a "run-over" case rather than a fall from a train, and whether the investigation complied with the statutory Rules of 2020.

Strict Liability Under Section 124A Of Railways Act

The Court began by emphasizing the nature of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which deals with compensation on account of untoward incidents. The bench noted that the section imposes a principle of strict liability where the railway administration is liable to pay compensation regardless of any wrongful act or neglect, provided the incident does not fall under specific exceptions like suicide or self-inflicted injury.

Initial Burden Of Proof And The Shifting Onus - Court Relies On Supreme Court Precedent In Rina Devi Case

Referring to the landmark decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court noted that the initial burden on the claimant is discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts. Once such an affidavit is filed, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the status of the passenger. The Court observed that in this case, the claimants had affirmed that the victim boarded the train, and the Railways failed to adduce positive evidence to the contrary.

"Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances."

Absence Of Ticket Not Fatal To Claim - Presumption Of Bona Fide Travel In Long Distance Trains

Justice Chowdhury observed that it is common experience for tickets to be lost or destroyed during accidental falls from moving trains. The Court reasoned that a person traveling on a long-distance express train usually does not risk traveling without a ticket for fear of prosecution. It was further noted that while a living person could be asked to produce a ticket, it is unreasonable to charge a deceased person as a ticketless traveler as they cannot defend themselves.

"A person while travelling in long distance express trains usually does not take the risk of travelling without tickets for the fear of being caught and prosecuted by Ticket Examiners as during long journey examination of ticket is done by Railway Authority."

Impracticability Of Producing Eye-Witnesses - Unreasonable To Expect Eye-Witnesses For Lone Travelers

The Court criticized the Tribunal's insistence on eye-witnesses, noting that for accidents occurring far from a victim’s residence, arranging such witnesses is nearly impossible. Relying on the Karnataka High Court's view in Yellomma v. Union of India, the bench remarked that expecting claimants to produce eye-witnesses for a lone traveler is "wholly unwarranted" and "ridicule on the part of the railway administration."

"Expectation by the railway administration that the claimants should examine eye witness is ridicule on the part of the railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted."

Failure To Comply With Investigation Rules - Railways Bound By Investigation Rules Of 2020

The Court highlighted that the Railway Authorities are a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and have a duty to ensure genuine claims are honored. It pointed out that the Respondent failed to show compliance with Rule 10 and Rule 12 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020. These rules mandate a time-bound investigation and a speaking order by the Divisional Railway Manager on whether a claim should be admitted.

Rejection Of "Run-Over" Theory - Absence Of Evidence To Support Run-Over Plea

The Railways argued that the nature of injuries suggested the victim was "run over" while crossing tracks. However, the Court found this plea unsustainable in the absence of direct evidence. It noted that the victim resided more than 100 km away from the incident site and had no business or employment in that area. Therefore, the presumption of him being run over while crossing the tracks was deemed "totally unreasonable."

"When the residence of the victim is more than 100 km from the place of incident there is no scope to presume that the victim was run over by train in absence of direct evidence."

Concluding that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s dismissal. The Court directed the Railways to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim. The amount is to be deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks.

Date of Decision: June 29, 2026