Absence Of Train Ticket On Mishap Victim's Body No Ground To Deny Compensation To Next Of Kin: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court held on Friday that the absence of a train ticket on a deceased passenger’s body cannot be grounds to deny compensation, overturning tribunal and high court orders and awarding Rs 8 lakh to the victim’s widow.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said mere absence of a train ticket on the body of a deceased passenger cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the victim's family in a railway-accident case.

The widow’s compensation claim was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the ground that her husband was not proved to be a bona-fide passenger because his ticket was not found after the accident.

The apex court set aside the concurrent orders of the RCT and the high court, and awarded a compensation of Rs 8 lakh to Lata, the widow of a man who died after falling from a running train in 2015.

The bench noted that the appellant stated the deceased had a ticket in his bag for the journey and that there was no other way to prove this. It noted that there was no denial that the deceased was travelling on the train and that the incident occurred.

The bench said the fact of death and that it does not fall into the provided exceptions is quite clear and no one claims the exceptions apply. “Then, the claim only depends on the ticket. The said bag in which the ticket was allegedly kept, could not be recovered, more so by the Police. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the courts below erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant,” said the bench.

Citing previous judgments of the apex court, the bench said they record that merely because the ticket of a train journey was not found on the person of the deceased, will not change his status as a bona fide passenger.

The bench said the claimant's initial burden can be satisfied by an affidavit and such an affidavit has indisputably been filed by the claimant in the present facts.

“In that view of the matter and with reference to Schedule I to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 and enhanced by a Notification bearing No. GSR 1165(E) dated 22.12.2016, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger is Rs. 8,00,000/-,” said the apex court.

The bench said the Railways has, for its part, laid down guidelines to check for passengers travelling without authorisation or travelling beyond permitted limits. “That may be so, but it is equally true that despite all this, overcrowding is a regular occurrence and that is more often than not the reason for such unfortunate incidents,” it said.

The bench said it would be entirely unfair to cast sole responsibility upon the Railways, as the passengers themselves have an equal responsibility. “Incidents such as these are not hidden from the general public and despite the painful ends that most of these people meet, there has not been a reform in habit and people still insist on being daredevils in catching trains and making their way from one place to another,” said the bench.

The bench said that true it is that most of these choices are informed by one or the other practical consideration, but the risk stares one right in the face. “Sometimes then, practical considerations must give way to the preservation of life. It is unfortunate that in the economic rat race, such obvious aspects are readily kept on the backburner,” it said.

The bench said the Railways Act is a beneficial welfare legislation and must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation.

Referring to earlier verdicts, Justice Karol, who authored the judgment, said, "The beneficial legislations are to receive purposive and liberal construction in furtherance of the intentions of the legislature, as can be discerned, instead of a literal or restrictive approach being adopted. The overall idea is to make the intention so understood, functional."

The bench said technical approaches and procedural lapses should not defeat the welfare aim of the statute as it does not befit the railways, as an instrumentality of the state, to take such a restrictive, pigeonhole view.

The bench said that one aspect that caught its attention while perusing the manual and other related documents, was the use of the term “second class passenger”. “While it is ostensibly linked to the expenditure incurred by the passenger to travel, we may suggest that the class connotation be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in recognition of the history of class divisions in our country and the same being offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India”, said the apex court.

The case arose from the death of Chandrakant Thakkar, who allegedly fell from the Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail train while travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad in November 2015. His travel bag, which reportedly contained the train ticket, went missing after the accident.

Also Read

Railway Minister Announces New Refund Slabs; No Refund For Cancellation Up To 8 Hours Before Departure