Calcutta HC Awards ₹8 Lakh to Railway Accident Victim's Family Despite Ticket Dispute [Read Judgment]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has allowed a compensation claim filed by the family of a man who died after accidentally falling from a running train, holding that the death qualified as an “untoward incident” under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, despite conflicting reports on whether a valid journey ticket was recovered from his body. 

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, which had dismissed the family's claim petition.

The victim had purchased a return journey ticket from Baidyabati to Belur on 1 October 2018 and was returning by a Bandel local at night when he accidentally fell from the train between Rishra and Serampore stations. The Sheoraphuli GRPS registered an unnatural death case and conducted an inquest, during which a journey ticket was seized from the body and a seizure list prepared. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim, and the family appealed to the High Court.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the ticket had been seized from the deceased's possession in the presence of railway staff, that the initial burden on the claimants had been discharged through an affidavit of relevant facts, and that the seizure of the ticket established the deceased as a bona fide passenger, bringing the case within the category of an untoward incident. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi, along with two Calcutta High Court decisions.

Counsel for the Union of India countered that an inquiry by the Railway Authority had found no journey ticket, pass, or PTO on the deceased, relying on a report of the RPF Post Commander, Bally. It was further submitted that the seizure witness, A.K. Mondal, had stated that the seizure list was blank when he signed it, and that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim on this basis.

Noting the conflict between the police report, which recorded recovery of a ticket, and the railway inquiry, which recorded none, the Court observed that in railway accident cases occurring far from a victim's residence, it is often impossible to arrange eyewitnesses, leaving claimants to rely on police and railway reports and their own knowledge of the victim's travel.

“It is not possible for the claimants to examine a person as they have witnessed that the deceased has purchased tickets and also it is not possible for the claimants to examine a person as eye witness to the incident...It is not a rivers [reverse] burden on the claimants to prove each and every from the claimants, which the railway authorities ought to do,”

the Court quoted from the Karnataka High Court's decision in Smt. Yellamma v. Union of India, holding that certain statutory duties are cast upon railway officials themselves when an untoward incident occurs.

“Mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways,”

the Court further quoted from the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi, applying this burden-shifting framework to the facts before it.

Examining the evidence, the Court noted that the deceased's wife, examined as A.W.-1, had deposed that she learnt her husband would return late after work, and that nothing material was shaken in her cross-examination regarding his travel or the accident. On the ticket dispute, the Court found that the police inquest report specifically recorded that a railway ticket was recovered from the body by one Kartick Dom, whose name and left thumb impression also appeared on the seizure list.

The Court declined to rely on the statement of the RPF Head Constable that the seizure list was blank when he signed it, noting that in cross-examination he had admitted his signature on the investigation report while claiming there was Bengali writing on it that he could not understand, a claim the Court found unsupported on a perusal of the report itself. It further held that an investigation report and seizure list prepared during a lawful police investigation cannot be discarded without examining the Investigating Officer, who had not been examined by the respondent in this case.

Holding that the appellants had proved the death to be an untoward incident entitling them to compensation, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim case till the date of the judgment, directing the Union of India to deposit the amount before the Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta, within eight weeks.

Appearances: Mr. Sujay Sinha, Advocate, for the appellants; Mr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty and Mr. Subrata Santra, Advocates, for the Union of India.

Case Title: Rumpa Mallick & Ors. vs. Union of India

[Read Judgment]