Supreme Court: While considering the present appeal challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of the appellant’s husband in an alleged railway accident; the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration.
The Court explained that absence of a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the claimant’s version. This principle shall guide all future tribunals and High Courts in construing Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment.
Background:
The appellant’s husband purchased a second-class ticket at Indore Railway Junction for travel to Ujjain by Ranthambore Express. It was alleged that due to overcrowding, he was pushed out of the running train, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Narwar, District Ujjain, resulting in fatal head injuries. An inquest under Section 174 CrPC was registered and was closed as an accidental fall. Post-mortem report opined death due to profuse haemorrhage and shock consequent to head injury.
The appellant being the widow and her minor son filed claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (Tribunal), seeking compensation of ₹12,00,000. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased was a bonafide passenger. No ticket was recovered from his person or belongings, and the photocopy of tickets was considered doubtful as there was no seizure memo and the investigating officer was not examined. The Tribunal also noticed inconsistencies in the record regarding the place of incident.
The appellants then approached the High Court. Court. While accepting that the incident constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the High Court nonetheless concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Aggrieved with High Court’s verdict, the appellants approached the Supreme Court contending that High Court erred in dismissing their claim. Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 642, the appellants contended that mere non-recovery of ticket is not fatal, and once prima facie proof is given, the burden shifts on the Railways to disprove the said fact.
Per contra, the respondents argued that there existed no cogent primary evidence to establish that deceased was holding a valid ticket for the fateful journey. The photocopy of the alleged ticket produced was neither recovered at the spot nor proved through a seizure memo or testimony of witness establish that deceased had purchased the ticket; the concerned officer was not examined; and there is no contemporaneous record of an alarm or report of a fall from the running train in that sector.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court firstly delved into the legal position applicable in the case. It was stated that Section 124-A of the Railways Act embodies a no-fault regime for “untoward incidents”, but compensation remains predicated on the victim being a “passenger”. In Rina Devi (supra), therein the Court compensation under Sections 124/124-A is payable “whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault” and clarified two facets namely: (i) the regime is one of strict (no-fault) liability, with exceptions confined to the proviso to Section 124-A; and (ii) mere non-recovery of a ticket from the victim’s person is not ipso facto fatal where the claimant lays a credible prima facie foundation, upon which the onus may shift to the Railways.
The Court observed that appellants’ case solely rests on the affidavit dated 10-02-2020 filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal wherein it was unequivocally stated that her deceased husband travelling from Indore to Ujjain by Ranthambore Express with ticket in second class. The appellant had further deposed that the ticket has been seized by the Police Narwar, District Ujjain and that on previous night before the travel, she was told by the deceased that he was going out with some work and asked for his Aadhar Card and ID proof and thereafter he left the house with his luggage. Before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court the appellants had placed reliance on Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) note to contend that Police Station Narwar while forwarding the documents to the railway authorities had forwarded a railway ticket.
Thus, the initial burden which was cast on the claimants stood discharged. The High Court while examining the issue as to whether appellants had proved deceased was a bonafide passenger, same was held in the negative on the premise that the railway ticket was not found along with the body of the deceased or along with the articles found near the body of the deceased.
The Court was not convinced with the respondents’ contention vis-a-vis suspicious circumstances of the railway tickets as the appellants had discharged the initial burden which was cast on them to prove that the deceased had travelled in the train; secondly High Court by relying upon the report of DRM report, had arrived at a conclusion that the death of appellant’s husband would fall within the purview of expression ‘untoward incident’ and thirdly, ticket which formed part of the police report stood unrebutted; Fourthly, the very same report also disclosed the Chief Booking Supervisor, Indore had verified the ticket produced along with the report of the police and certified that ticket had been issued from Indore Station.
Therefore, the Court opined that High Court made an error in affirming the finding of the Railways Claims Tribunal whereunder the claimants petition had been rejected for nonproduction of a seizure memo of the ticket and for non-examination of the investigating officer, which is and was the main thrust of argument canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways.
The Court emphasised that mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989. Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with liability of railway administration for death and injury to passenger due to accident. A hyper technical approach which would frustrate the object of providing relief to victims of railway accidents should be eschewed. The insistence on a formal seizure memo would amount to importing standard of proof which normally is sought for in a criminal trial.
The Court reaffirmed that proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of the claimant. “The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race”.
Therefore, the Court held that findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court
Cannot be sustainable and would warrant interference. Hence, the Judgments by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal Bench and the Order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur were set aside and the claim petition was allowed in part and the Respondents were directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) to the appellants-applicant.
[Rajni v. Union of India, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 19549 OF 2024, decided on 8-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.k. Mody, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv. Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour, Adv. Ms. Aniya, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
