The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the absence of a railway ticket from a deceased passenger's belongings, by itself, does not mean that he was travelling without a ticket.

In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed an appeal filed by the parents of a deceased passenger and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing their compensation claim.

The Court awarded Rs. 8 lakh compensation to the parents under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 which provides for compensation in cases of “untoward incidents” involving railway passengers.

The Court observed:

“In the instant case, the claimants have placed the facts regarding the purchase of ticket by the father of the deceased, and the said fact was pleaded, as such, the department is required to rebut the same.

…learned counsel for the appellants submits that, once an affidavit is filed stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which shows that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by falling during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in train was not rebutted…”

The issue arose from a claim for compensation following the death of a passenger who fell from a train at Tuni Railway Station while travelling from Tanuku to Visakhapatnam.

The deceased, a bachelor and an Engineering graduate, had accompanied his father to Tanuku Railway Station for the purpose of visiting his paternal uncle at Pinninty Village in Srikakulam District. His father purchased a passenger journey ticket from Tanuku to Visakhapatnam, following which the deceased boarded the train in his father's presence.

While travelling, the deceased allegedly fell from the train at Tuni Railway Station amid heavy rush of passengers. According to the claimants, he suddenly slipped due to the jerks of the running train and fell between the platform and the train. He was dragged by the train and sustained severe crush injuries to his legs and hand. He was shifted to a Government Central Hospital where he was declared dead.

The deceased's parents thereafter approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

The Railways contested the claim, denying that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was contended that he had attempted to board the moving train from its off-side and had fallen down, resulting in self-inflicted injuries. It was also argued that no journey ticket was found in his possession.

The Tribunal found that the claimants were the parents and therefore dependents of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act. However, since no journey ticket was found in the deceased's possession, it held that he was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident could not be treated as an “untoward incident”. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed.

Therefore, the appellants approached the High Court, contending that the journey ticket could have been lost during the accident or while the deceased was being shifted to the hospital, particularly since he had been handled by several persons and agencies.

They argued that the Tribunal wrongly presumed that he was not carrying a ticket merely because it was not recovered, despite his other belongings being found intact during the inquest.

The appellants also relied on the procedure prescribed under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Amendment Rules, 2007, which require the investigation to be completed within 60 days and the report forwarded to the Divisional Railway Manager within the prescribed period. They contended that the report was submitted more than a year after the claim was filed and that the investigation into the deceased's death was not properly conducted.

Considering the circumstances of the accident and the material on record, the High Court noted that the claimants had specifically pleaded that the deceased's father had purchased the journey ticket. It held that once the claimants placed these facts on record, the Railways was required to rebut them.

The Court rejected the Railways' contention that the deceased had sustained self-inflicted injuries while attempting to board a moving train.

“A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured to be bona fide passenger even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased and it was lost”, the Court said.

It emphasized that the concept of “self-inflicted injury” requires an intention to inflict the injury and cannot be established merely on the basis of negligence.

The High Court further observed that failure to conduct the inquiry mandated under the Rules immediately after the incident would entitle the claimant to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

The Court therefore held that the non-recovery of the journey ticket did not change the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger and that the claimants were entitled to compensation.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The Court directed the Railways to pay Rs. 8 lakh towards compensation within two months from receipt of a copy of the order, with the amount to be apportioned equally between the two appellants.

Case Title: N. Sri Rama Prasad and another v. Union of India

Case No.: C.M.A. No. 159 of 2021

Counsel for Appellants: Geetha Madhuri N.S.

Counsel for Respondent: J.U.M.V. Prasad, Central Government Counsel

Click Here To Read/Download Order