Simplified Explanation of the Judgment:
In a recent case, the Patna High Court reviewed an appeal filed by the Union of India (Railways) challenging a compensation order granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The case involved the tragic death of a man who fell from a moving train due to overcrowding.
The deceased had boarded the Gaya-Dhanbad Intercity Express from Gaya Junction on 27 April 2014 with a valid second-class ticket, intending to travel to Koderma. Because of heavy rush in the train, he was standing near the door. Unfortunately, he fell from the train due to jostling among passengers and died on the spot.
His wife, the applicant, filed for compensation. The Railway denied the claim, arguing the deceased was not a valid ticket-holder and suggesting he may have committed suicide. However, the Tribunal ruled in her favor and awarded Rs. 4 lakhs compensation along with interest.
In appeal, the Railways reiterated that no ticket was recovered and pointed to an alleged suicide note. The High Court, however, noted that the wife had provided credible oral and documentary evidence, including affidavits and official reports, confirming that the death was accidental and occurred during travel.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi, the High Court held that the absence of a ticket is not alone sufficient to deny compensation. Once the claimant proves the likelihood of valid travel, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove it – which was not done convincingly in this case.
The Court confirmed the compensation but modified the interest rate to 6% per annum from the original 10%, aligning with prevailing norms.
Significance of the Judgment:
This judgment underscores the principle that railway passengers are entitled to compensation for untoward incidents, even if the ticket is not found posthumously. It simplifies the process for bereaved families to claim compensation, placing the evidentiary burden on the Railways once initial proof is presented.
It provides reassurance to the public that accidental deaths due to railway operational hazards are recognized, and due process will protect dependents. For the government, it highlights the importance of passenger safety and accountability.
Legal Issue(s) Decided:
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
Whether the incident constituted an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Entitlement and extent of compensation to the dependent.
Appropriate rate of interest on the awarded compensation.
Judgments Referred by Parties:
Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court:
Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572
Case Title:
Union of India Through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur vs. Wife of the Deceased Passenger
Case Number:
Miscellaneous Appeal No.1175 of 2016
Citation(s): 2024(4) PLJR
Coram and Names of Judges:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Names of Advocates Who Appeared in the Case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma (Sr. Panel Counsel), Mr. Rakesh Kumar No. 1
For the Respondent: Mr. Anant Kumar-1
Link to the Judgment:
MiMxMTc1IzIwMTYjMSNO-3PkCZhnssuc=
0 Comments