“Clerical Error In Name Cannot Defeat Statutory Right”: Bombay High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Railway Death Compensation Claim
The Bombay High Court has held that a compensation claim arising out of a railway accident cannot be rejected merely because there is a minor variation in the passenger's name appearing on the season ticket when the identity card number mentioned on the ticket matches and establishes the identity of the passenger. The Court observed that if the identity of the passenger is otherwise...
The Bombay High Court has held that a compensation claim arising out of a railway accident cannot be rejected merely because there is a minor variation in the passenger's name appearing on the season ticket when the identity card number mentioned on the ticket matches and establishes the identity of the passenger. The Court observed that if the identity of the passenger is otherwise proved through reliable material such as the identity card issued by the railway authorities, a clerical or truncated name printed on the ticket cannot defeat the statutory right to claim compensation.
Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing a first appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased passenger challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 5 September 2014 by which their claim for compensation was rejected. The Tribunal had accepted that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act but rejected the claim on the grounds that the name appearing on the railway identity card did not tally with the name printed on the monthly season ticket and that the relationship between the deceased and the claimants had not been sufficiently proved. The appellants contended that the deceased held a valid railway identity card bearing his photograph and full name “Radhesyam Sen Nuwab.” The monthly season ticket produced by the claimants bore the name “Radhesham.”
The Court noted that when a passenger purchases a monthly season ticket, the identity card must be produced at the ticket counter and the ticket is issued by entering the details based on that card. The ticket in the present case contained the same identity card number as that appearing on the railway identity card, thereby conclusively establishing that the ticket was issued to the same person. It observed:
“If the officer at the counter punches only the first name and not the other names appearing on the I.D. Card, it cannot be said that the monthly season ticket was not issued to the person, in whose favour the I.D. Card has been issued.”
The Court also examined the Tribunal's finding that the relationship between the deceased and the claimants had not been proved. The appellants had produced documents such as ration cards, election cards and other records to establish the relationship. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not examined these documents in detail and had given no elaborate reasoning for rejecting them.
Hence, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim solely on account of the variation between the names appearing on the identity card and the season ticket.
The High Court accordingly disposed of the appeal by reversing the Tribunal's finding regarding the discrepancy in the passenger's name and directing the Railway Claims Tribunal to re-adjudicate the issue of relationship and, if the claimants are found eligible, to pass appropriate orders granting compensation.
Case Title: Rekha Rupchand Singh (Deleted) & Ors. v. Union of India [First Appeal No. 471 of 2016]