A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court adjudicated a claim of compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, emphasizing the burden of proof concerning bona fide passenger status in railway accident cases. The Court resolved disputes about the entitlement to compensation for the death of the appellant’s brother, who fell from a train and died. It held that the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim if affidavits and corroborative evidence substantiate the victim’s passenger status. The presumption of bona fide passenger status can shift the burden to the Railways to disprove it. The appellant’s entitlement to compensation was affirmed at ₹8,00,000, as per the updated guidelines under the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

Keywords: Railway Accident, Compensation, Burden of Proof, Bona fide Passenger, Section 124A of the Railways Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: 09 August 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
vi) Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI
vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 391
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 16, Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987; Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989.
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None.
x) Case Related to: Tort Law, Railway Law, and Compensation Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant, Doli Rani Saha, sought compensation for her brother’s death, alleging he fell from a moving train on 5 September 2003. His body was recovered three days later. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, citing insufficient evidence to establish his status as a bona fide passenger. Appeals to the Gauhati High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving the conflict surrounding the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger and the ensuing entitlement to compensation under the Railways Act.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The deceased, Swapan Kumar Saha, allegedly fell from the Kanchanjanga Express (Train No. 5658) on 5 September 2003.
2. His body was recovered near Dolma Gate on 8 September 2003.
3. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking ₹4,00,000 in compensation.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition, concluding insufficient evidence was provided to prove bona fide passenger status.
5. Both the Gauhati High Court and the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected subsequent appeals and review petitions.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train at the time of the incident.
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act.
3. Whether the absence of a ticket negates the bona fide passenger claim.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Affidavits Substantiating Facts: The appellant argued that affidavits provided sufficient proof of the deceased’s bona fide passenger status.
2. Reliance on Investigative Reports: The final report by the Investigating Officer (IO) and post-mortem report corroborated the occurrence of the fall and injuries from blunt force impact.
3. Legal Precedents: Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the appellant contended that the absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide status.
4. Compensation Standards: It was urged that compensation be enhanced to ₹8,00,000 as per updated Railway Accidents Compensation Rules.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Delay in Recovery: The Railways questioned the delay in recovering the body, suggesting it indicated non-travel-related causes.
2. Failure to Produce Evidence: The respondent alleged insufficient evidence to establish the deceased’s passenger status, emphasizing the lack of a valid ticket.
3. Tribunal’s Findings: The Railways upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning, which relied on the absence of eye-witness accounts and corroborative material.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. Burden of Proof: The claimant bears the initial burden to prove bona fide passenger status. Affidavits and investigative reports suffice to shift the burden to the Railways.
2. Absence of Ticket: Non-possession of a ticket does not conclusively negate a passenger’s bona fide status (Union of India v. Rina Devi applied).
3. Compensation Quantum: Compensation payable is calculated as per the amount prescribed at the time of the incident or the award, whichever is higher.

b) Obiter Dicta

The Court noted that post-mortem reports estimating time of death involve an acceptable margin of error.

c) Guidelines

1. Claimants may discharge the burden of proof using affidavits and corroborative investigative reports.
2. Railways must actively disprove bona fide passenger status with credible evidence.
3. Compensation awards should follow the updated amounts prescribed under the applicable rules.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the principle of beneficial interpretation in compensation cases under the Railways Act. It emphasizes that technicalities, like the absence of a ticket, should not deny rightful compensation.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Union of India v. Rina Devi, [2019] 3 SCC 572.
2. Union of India v. Radha Yadav, [2019] 3 SCC 410.
3. Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and Others, [2023] SCC Online SC 642.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
2. Railways Act, 1989
3. Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990