Widow And Son Awarded ₹4 Lakh Plus 7.5% Interest From 2010 As Bombay HC Accepts Unchallenged Ticket Testimony, Finds Trespass Unproved

The appellants, the deceased’s wife and son, claimed compensation after he died from injuries sustained on 11 January 2010 while travelling by train from Ambernath to Badlapur.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed their claim, finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from trespassing rather than an untoward incident.

On appeal, the appellants relied, among other things, on AW-2’s evidence that the deceased had purchased a ticket; the Railways had not cross-examined AW-2 on that point or led evidence in rebuttal.

Whether the appellants established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, notwithstanding that no ticket was found on his person.

Whether the death resulted from an untoward incident, or whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the deceased was trespassing on the tracks.

Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest from the date of the incident.

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of a passenger from a train; in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Supreme Court held that the claimant bears an initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status, but absence of a ticket on the deceased’s person is not conclusive, and the burden may shift to the Railways once the claimant produces relevant material.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ 1895, requires a liberal interpretation of the Railways Act and holds that an accidental fall while attempting to board a train may fall within Section 123(c).

The Court also relied on Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan v. Union of India for the need to avoid unsupported inferences about how an accident occurred.

Applying Union of India v. Dilip, (2024) 11 SCC 415, it awarded interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the incident.

AW-2’s specific evidence that the deceased purchased a ticket was unchallenged in cross-examination and unrebutted by the Railways; the Court held that neither the absence of a ticket on the deceased nor AW-2’s relationship with him justified rejecting that evidence.

The Tribunal had relied on the Station Master’s Memo, inquest and police report to infer trespass, but the officials who prepared those documents had not witnessed the incident, and the Railways led no supporting evidence; the documents therefore did not conclusively establish how the accident occurred.

The Court further held that, even accepting the Railways’ account, the Tribunal’s conclusion could not stand in light of the liberal interpretation applicable to the statutory definition of an untoward incident and the absence of cogent evidence establishing trespass.

It applied Dilip to award interest from the date of the accident.

It directed the Railways to pay the appellants Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from 11 January 2010, within eight weeks.