Railway Inquiry Into 'Untoward Incident' Must Verify Travel Through Independent Sources, Not Stop At Non-Recovery Of Ticket: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh compensation to the parents of a man who died after allegedly falling from a running train, holding that non-recovery of his ticket could not by itself defeat their claim where the Railway Administration made no genuine effort to verify his travel status through independent sources.
Justice Harkesh Manuja sets aside a Railway Claims Tribunal award, holding that a DRM enquiry confined to noting the absence of a ticket, without examining the Ticket Examiner, Guard or co-passengers cannot rebut the statutory presumption in favour of a claimant.
"In the present case, no material has been produced to demonstrate that such investigation was conducted in its true spirit. The enquiry appears to have been confined substantially to recording that no ticket was recovered from the body, without making any serious effort to verify the travel of the deceased through independent sources. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger solely on account of non-recovery of the railway ticket cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside," added the Court.
Jonathan James boarded a train from Amritsar for Ludhiana on 02.06.2016. While the train was crossing a bridge between Hamira and Dilwana stations, he allegedly fell from the running train and died of his injuries at the spot.
His legal heirs' claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was dismissed by the Tribunal at Chandigarh, which held that no ticket was recovered from the body and that the father had earlier lodged an FIR under Section 302 IPC alleging his son was murdered — a version the Tribunal found irreconcilable with the claim of accidental fall.
Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, the Court reiterated that non-recovery of a ticket cannot by itself disprove bona fide travel, a fatal fall from a train can easily result in loss of articles carried by the deceased.
Once the claimants place the foundational facts on record, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the presumption with cogent evidence, it added.
The Court found that burden undischarged, neither the Ticket Examiner nor any railway official on the train was examined to say the deceased was travelling without a ticket, and the DRM's enquiry report was "conspicuously silent" on whether any such enquiry was even conducted.
It also did not disclose any effort to search for ticket fragments or the deceased's belongings at the site. Given the statutory duty under the Railway Passenger (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 to conduct a prompt and meaningful investigation, the Court held that an enquiry confined to recording the ticket's absence, with no serious effort to verify travel independently, could not sustain a finding against the claimants.
The Court held the Tribunal erred in treating the father's earlier FIR as fatal to the claim, since that FIR had been cancelled after investigation and the cancellation report accepted by the criminal court. Once the murder allegation was found unsubstantiated, the Tribunal could not keep relying on the father's initial suspicion while ignoring the final outcome.
The post-mortem findings, injuries consistent with a fall from a moving train, further supported the accident version, and the Railway produced no evidence of any other cause of death.
Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities that governs Railways Act claims, and noting that the Railway had not brought the case within any of the exceptions in the proviso to Section 124-A, the Court held that the appellants had established both that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death was an "untoward incident."
Since the claim was decided by the Tribunal in 2020, after the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were amended with effect from 01.01.2017 to raise death compensation from ₹4 lakh to ₹8 lakh, the Court applied Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) to award the enhanced amount.
The award of ₹8 lakh was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till realisation, rising to 12% if not paid within eight weeks of a certified copy of the judgment.
Case Title: Philips and another v. Union of India
Appearances: Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. Vansh Chawla for Mr. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India.Case: Philips & Anr. v. Union of India
Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate for Mr. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.