Police investigation report and seizure of ticket from deceased establish status of bona-fide passenger.

On October 1, 2018, the victim allegedly boarded a Bandel local train from Belur to return home after work. Near KM post 17/3-17/5 between Rishra and Serampore stations, the victim accidentally fell from the train and died

The Sheoraphuli GRPS conducted an investigation under Section 174 CrPC and prepared a seizure list noting the recovery of a journey ticket from the victim’s pocket

However, the Railway Authority contested the claim, citing an RPF report stating no ticket was found and a seizure witness's testimony that he signed a blank paper

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata, dismissed the claim on January 16, 2024, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the death of the deceased constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the accident despite conflicting reports regarding the recovery of a journey ticket

The court primarily applied Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which provides for strict liability compensation for death or injury resulting from an "untoward incident," regardless of any wrongful act or neglect by the railway administration, provided the victim is a "passenger" (including those with valid tickets)

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which established that the initial burden of proof on the claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, and that the absence of a ticket does not automatically negate a claim

It further referred to Smt. Yellamma v. Union of India, noting that claimants cannot be expected to produce eye-witnesses for solo travelers and that the burden shifts to the Railways once the initial facts are presented

The Court found that the appellants discharged their initial burden through the testimony of A.W. 1, who affirmed the deceased’s travel schedule and work routine

Regarding the conflicting evidence on the ticket, the Court favored the Police Investigation Report and Seizure List prepared under Section 174 CrPC, which explicitly recorded the recovery of a ticket by "doms" in the presence of witnesses

The Court rejected the testimony of the RPF witness who claimed he signed a blank seizure list, noting that he later admitted his signature and that the document was in English, not Bengali, as he had alleged

Since the Railway Authority failed to examine the Investigating Officer to disprove the police report, the Court held that the police findings remained valid

Consequently, the circumstances pointed to an accidental fall, fitting the definition of an "untoward incident."

The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal’s order was set aside. The Court ordered the Respondent/Railway to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim until payment, to be deposited with the Registrar General within eight weeks