Railways - Untoward incidents : Mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger
Supreme Court Upholds Compensation for Railway Accident Despite Procedural Lapses. The Supreme Court emphasizes welfare statutes, granting Rs. 8,00,000 compensation to victims' families.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, thereby granting compensation to the family of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik, who tragically died in a railway accident. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, underscores the importance of welfare statutes and cautions against hyper-technical approaches that undermine the objectives of such legislation.
The case originated from an incident on May 19, 2017, when Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik allegedly fell from the Ranthambore Express due to overcrowding. Despite the absence of a physical ticket at the accident site, affidavits and official railway inquiries substantiated the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Initially, both the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court denied compensation, questioning the validity of the travel ticket and the lack of procedural evidence like a seizure memo.
However, the Supreme Court has now clarified the legal position under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which embodies a no-fault regime for untoward incidents. The Court emphasized that once prima facie evidence is established - through affidavits or official railway inquiries verifying ticket issuance - the burden of proof shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim. The Court highlighted that welfare statutes should not be frustrated by procedural technicalities, and compensation claims must be governed by principles of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court referred to the affidavit provided by the deceased's wife and the Divisional Railway Manager’s report, which verified the issuance of a travel ticket from Indore to Ujjain. The Court noted that the burden of proof, initially on the claimants, had been adequately discharged, thereby shifting the onus to the Railways. The judgment also reiterated that mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger, as established in previous rulings like Union of India v. Rina Devi.
The Supreme Court's decision mandates the Railways to pay Rs. 8,00,000 as compensation to the appellants within eight weeks, failing which interest will accrue at 6% per annum. The judgment serves as a reminder of the humanitarian purpose underlying the Railways Act, ensuring that victims' families receive the justice and relief intended by the legislation.
Bottom Line:
Railways Act, 1989 - Compensation for untoward incidents - Mere absence of a ticket with the deceased does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger if credible evidence and affidavits substantiate the claim. The burden of proof shifts to the Railways once prima facie evidence is established.
Statutory provision(s): Railways Act, 1989, Section 124-A
