Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Rules Deceased as Bona Fide Passenger in Railway Accident, Awards Compensation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., that the deceased in a railway accident was a bona fide passenger. The Court set aside the findings of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court, terming them as perverse.

The case revolved around a claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. The initial burden was on the claimants to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, which they successfully established. The burden then shifted to the Railway Administration to disprove this, but they failed to provide any evidence to refute the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.

The Court also took Into account an investigation report accepted by the Divisional Railway Manager, which acknowledged the occurrence of the untoward incident. The findings of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were criticized for not considering the investigation documents and final report, leading to their set-aside as perverse.

Regarding the compensation, the Court referred to the amended Compensation Rules and held that the amount payable should be calculated based on the amended rules. The Court applied the principles laid down in previous judgments, including Rina Devi and Radha Yadav, and emphasized that the claimants should receive the higher of two amounts if the liability for compensation arose before the amendment.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and awarded the appellants compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 7% per annum. If the final figure, after applying interest, is less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, the appellants will be entitled to the higher amount. The respondents were directed to pay the compensation within eight weeks.

This judgment highlights the importance of establishing the status of a bona fide passenger in railway accident cases and the burden of proof placed on both claimants and the Railway Administration. It also showcases the Court’s commitment to ensuring just compensation for victims of untoward incidents.

16 May 2023,

Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors.

 

Latest Legal News