Deceased Train Passenger Cannot Be Presumed Ticketless Merely Because Ticket Is Not Recovered: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has observed that in railway untoward incident cases, the absence of a recovered ticket from a deceased passenger cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that the person was travelling without a ticket.Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury made the observation while allowing an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's refusal to award compensation to the family of a...
The Calcutta High Court has observed that in railway untoward incident cases, the absence of a recovered ticket from a deceased passenger cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that the person was travelling without a ticket.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury made the observation while allowing an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's refusal to award compensation to the family of a passenger who died after falling from a running train.
The Court noted that in such cases it may not always be possible for the victim's family to produce an eyewitness to the fall and they may have to rely on police or railway records and other available evidence.
“In many cases of Railway untoward incident where ticket could not be recovered from victim reliance can be placed on oral evidence,” the Court observed.
The Court further said that a person normally would not risk travelling without a ticket due to the possibility of being caught and punished. It added that where the passenger has died, he cannot be saddled with an allegation of travelling without a ticket when he is no longer in a position to defend himself.
The Court was considering the claim arising from the death of Bappu Pal, who allegedly fell from a running local train on April 9, 2019 amid heavy rush and died.
The Tribunal had dismissed the claim, holding that the claimants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from a fall from the train.
The High Court, however, relied upon the evidence of the deceased's brother, Pintu Pal, who stated that the deceased had purchased a ticket and boarded the same train. The Court also noted that the police report under Section 174 CrPC mentioned seizure of the ticket.
The Court found no material inconsistency in Pintu Pal's statements before the Court and the RPF authority and held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
It accordingly held that the death constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the claimants to compensation under Section 124A.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the Railways to pay Rs 8 lakh with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. The amount is to be deposited before the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks.
Case Details: Anamika Halder (Pal) & Ors. v. Union of India,
Case No: F.M.A. 1152 of 2025