Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of compensation in railway accidents where the deceased passenger’s ticket is not found post-incident. The case involved the tragic death of a young man who fell from a moving train, with the Railway Claims Tribunal initially denying compensation due to the absence of a ticket. The High Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that the absence of a ticket does not automatically negate a claim for compensation, provided there is credible evidence supporting the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.

Arguments:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners, the parents of the deceased, contended that their son was traveling with valid tickets alongside his sister and nephew from Mahoba to Hazrat Nizamuddin on the Jabalpur-Nizamuddin Mahakaushal Express in 2017. They argued that the absence of the ticket post-incident should not undermine the legitimacy of their claim, especially given the credible evidence of ticket purchase and the circumstances of the accident.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Union of India, representing the Railways, maintained that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, primarily due to the absence of a ticket on his person at the time of the incident. They argued that this absence invalidated the claim for compensation under the Railways Act.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Dharmesh Sharma of the Delhi High Court critically examined the evidence and the reasoning of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Court observed that the Tribunal’s conclusion was unconscionable and perverse, failing to appreciate the credible evidence presented. It emphasized that the absence of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger, especially when there is substantial evidence indicating ticket purchase and travel.

The Court highlighted that under Section 2(29) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, a bona fide passenger is someone who has purchased a valid ticket for travel. It further noted that Section 124A of the Railways Act mandates compensation for untoward incidents, which includes accidental falls from trains. The Court concluded that the deceased’s death fell within the ambit of an ‘untoward incident’ and that the Railways could not absolve themselves of liability merely due to the absence of a ticket.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal’s order, and awarded the deceased’s family a statutory compensation of ₹8 lakh, along with an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the accident until realization.