Mere absence of a railway ticket or body dismemberment does not defeat untoward-incident compensation.

On 4 December 2020, Navinchandra allegedly purchased a valid railway ticket, boarded the Sabarmati Express from Ahmedabad intending to travel to Anand, and fell from the moving train when it started with a jerk amid heavy overcrowding.

He sustained fatal crush injuries. The ticket was allegedly lost in the accident.

His widow and children filed a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Railway Administration denied that he was a bona fide passenger and contended that the deceased had been lying on the track and had committed suicide, relying principally on the fact that his body was severed into two parts and on a DRM Report.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that unreserved tickets were not being issued during the relevant COVID-19 period and accepting the suicide theory.

The claimants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid railway ticket, notwithstanding that no ticket was recovered from his body.

2. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident,” namely, a fall from a passenger train within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the Railway Administration established that the death fell within the statutory exception relating to suicide, thereby excluding liability for compensation.

4. Whether the claimants were entitled to statutory compensation and, if so, the appropriate relief.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 governing appeals to the High Court, and Section 16 concerning presentation of claims.

Under Sections 123(b), 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger who suffers death in an “untoward incident,” including an accidental fall from a passenger train, may claim compensation, subject to the statutory exceptions.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, as reiterated in Dolly Rani Saha v. Union of India, holding that the claimant’s initial burden may be discharged through an affidavit setting out the relevant facts; thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways, and mere non-recovery of a ticket does not by itself negate bona fide passenger status.

The Court also relied on Rajni v. Union of India for the principles that claims under Section 124-A are determined on a preponderance of probabilities and that hyper-technical procedural objections should not defeat the beneficial purpose of the Railways Act.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar was relied upon for the liberal interpretation of the Railways Act as beneficial legislation and the principle of strict liability.

Under Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, a DRM Report is required to be submitted within 60 days of the incident; a substantially delayed report may consequently carry reduced evidentiary value.

The widow’s sworn testimony that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket, boarded the Sabarmati Express, and lost the ticket in the accident discharged the claimants’ initial burden.

The burden therefore shifted to the Railway Administration, which examined no eyewitness, railway official, investigating officer, or medical expert and relied only on the DRM Report.

That report was prepared on 3 November 2021, after the claim petition had been filed and well beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 27, substantially weakening its evidentiary value.

The Court held that the absence of a recovered ticket could not, by itself, defeat the claim, particularly when the widow’s evidence remained materially unrebutted.

The post-mortem report established crush injuries, separation of the body at the L3 vertebrae, and death from shock and haemorrhage, but did not establish that the deceased was lying on the track or intended to commit suicide.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s inference of suicide merely from the body being severed into two parts was found to be conjectural and unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.

Applying the beneficial and liberal approach mandated for railway-compensation claims, the Court concluded that the claimants had established bona fide travel and an untoward incident on a preponderance of probabilities.

It held that the deceased was to be treated as a bona fide passenger and that the Railway Administration had failed to prove suicide or otherwise rebut the claimants’ case.

The claim petition was consequently allowed, and the claimants were awarded compensation of ₹8,00,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the date of judgment.

The Railway Administration was directed to deposit the compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants through Account Payee Cheque/NEFT/RTGS, subject to deduction of any deficit court fees.