Passenger's Fatal Fall From Overcrowded Local Train: Calcutta High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh Compensation Despite Missing Ticket

The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere non-recovery of a railway ticket from a deceased passenger cannot, by itself, defeat a claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The Court observed that railway accident claims are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities and that the benefit of doubt, if any, should go in favour of the victim's family.

Allowing an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's rejection of a compensation claim, Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed the Railway Authority to pay ₹8 lakh to the appellants, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until the date of the judgment.

The Court held that the evidence established that the deceased had fallen from a moving train and sustained injuries that ultimately led to his death. It further found that the testimony of his friend, who travelled with him on the day of the incident, was sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid journey ticket.

"The benefit of doubt if any should go in favour of the claimants," the Court observed.

The appeal arose from a claim filed following the death of Sharawan Kumar, who sustained serious head injuries after allegedly falling from a crowded Down Budge Budge local train between Akra and Nangi stations on July 16, 2022. He was initially taken to ESI Hospital, Nangi, and subsequently admitted to SSKM Hospital in Kolkata, where he died on July 18, 2022.

The appellants contended that the Railway Claims Tribunal had selectively relied on the evidence while overlooking material documents and testimony supporting their claim. They argued that police records, the post-mortem report and the railway enquiry materials corroborated the case that the deceased had fallen from the moving train.

They also relied on the testimony of Munna Kumar Mahato, who stated that he had accompanied the deceased on the journey and had gone to the accident spot after learning of the fall before taking his injured friend to the hospital.

Opposing the appeal, the Railways argued that the claimants had failed to establish that the deceased had fallen from Train No. 34148 Down. It pointed to the absence of a journey ticket, the lack of a contemporaneous railway memo or report from the train's driver, and the absence of an entry in the Railway Protection Force diary concerning the alleged incident. The Railways also disputed whether the persons named in the police records had actually witnessed the fall.

Rejecting the Tribunal's approach, the High Court noted that the oral testimony of AW-2 Munna Kumar Mahato had not been shaken in cross-examination regarding his presence with the deceased on the day of the incident, his reaching the accident spot and his taking the injured man to the hospital.

The Court found that this testimony was corroborated by the post-mortem report, the police report submitted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the statement made by the witness before the Railway Protection Force.

"The oral evidence of AW-2 is corroborated by post mortem Report, Report Submitted by Police Authority under Section 174 CRPC to the Magistrate, and the statement made by AW-2 before RPF Authority," the Court observed.

On the question of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which held that the mere absence of a ticket with an injured or deceased person does not negate a claim that the person was a bona fide passenger.

The High Court noted that AW-2 had stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased had purchased a return ticket from Budge Budge to Sealdah through an automatic ticket vending machine. Although the witness stated in cross-examination that he had not seen the deceased purchase a ticket for the return journey, the Court found that his testimony regarding the purchase of the return ticket had not been shaken.

It further noted that the witness had stated that the deceased's purse and ticket were not found. In these circumstances, the Court held that there were sufficient grounds to presume that the ticket and purse had been misplaced after the accident.

"In absence of recovery of ticket and money purse the statement AW-2 is sufficient to hold that the victim was a bona-fide passenger with a valid journey ticket," the Court held.

The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Manju Agarwal v. Union of India and the judgment in Anamika Halder v. Union of India, which discussed the evidentiary value of oral testimony in railway accident compensation claims where no ticket is recovered from the deceased.

Emphasising the beneficial nature of railway compensation legislation, the Court observed that claimants are not required to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, the evidence must be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

"In the facts and circumstances the Appellants are able to prove that death of the victim is an untoward incident," the Court held.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's judgment dated August 19, 2024, and directed the Railways to deposit ₹8 lakh, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim case until October 13, 2026, before the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks from communication of the order. The appellants were permitted to withdraw the amount after completing the necessary formalities.

Case Title: Sudama Mahato @ Sudhama Mahato & Anr. v. Union of India

Case No.: F.M.A. 1313 of 2025