Railways Can't Deny Accident Compensation Merely By Disputing Recovery Of Deceased's Ticket: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a railway accident compensation claim cannot be rejected merely because the Railways dispute the recovery of a journey ticket, particularly when the police investigation records its seizure from the deceased and the claimants have discharged their initial burden of establishing that the victim was a bona fide passenger.Allowing an appeal against the dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed that in cases involving accidental deaths on railway tracks, families cannot be expected to produce eyewitnesses to prove ticket purchase or the manner of the accident, especially where the victim was travelling alone."It is to be remembered that in the case of compensation claim before Tribunals or Courts it is also necessary to consider that in case of death of a person by railway accident in a place far from his residence it is not possible to arrange for eye witnesses... the applicant has to depend on the report of the Police Authority, Railway Authority and his knowledge of the victim travelling in a train."The Court further held that police investigation records and seizure lists prepared in accordance with law cannot be discarded without examining the investigating officer, particularly where the Railways seek to challenge those documents."When an investigation is carried out by Police Authority in accordance with law and seizure list is prepared during investigation, the said investigation report and seizure list cannot be discarded without examination of the Investigating Officer."BackgroundThe appeal arose from the dismissal of a claim filed by the widow and family members of a man who died after allegedly falling from a local train on October 1, 2018, between Rishra and Serampore stations.According to the claimants, the deceased had purchased a return ticket from Baidyabati to Belur, completed his work, and while returning home by a Bandel local train accidentally fell from the compartment while standing near the door.The Government Railway Police registered an unnatural death case, conducted an inquest, and recorded that a railway journey ticket had been recovered from the deceased's pocket and seized during investigation.However, the Railway Administration relied upon an internal inquiry report prepared by the Railway Protection Force stating that no railway ticket had been found on the deceased. Relying primarily on this discrepancy and the testimony of a seizure witness who claimed he had signed a blank paper, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the compensation application.High Court's FindingsReversing the Tribunal's decision, the High Court found that the claimants had successfully discharged the initial burden required under Section 124A of the Railways Act.The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which held that mere absence of a ticket does not by itself defeat a compensation claim and that once claimants place relevant facts on affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways.The Bench also referred to the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Smt. Yellamma v. Union of India, which recognised that it is unrealistic to expect bereaved families to produce eyewitnesses to prove railway accidents involving lone passengers.Examining the evidence, the Court noted that the deceased's wife consistently deposed that her husband had informed her he would return home after completing work at Baidyabati and Belur. Her testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination.Significantly, the Court found that the police report submitted under Section 174 CrPC specifically recorded recovery of the railway ticket from the deceased's body. The seizure list also contained the thumb impression of the person who handed over the ticket.The Court found the Railways' challenge to the seizure list unconvincing. It observed that although an RPF witness claimed he had signed a blank seizure list, he later admitted in cross-examination that he believed some Bengali writing existed on the document—despite the investigation report containing no such writing. The Court held that this contradiction undermined his testimony.Holding that the police investigation could not be ignored without examining the investigating officer, the Court concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an "untoward incident" under Section 124A of the Railways Act.Accordingly, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the Union of India to pay ₹8 lakh as statutory compensation together with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.Case: Rumpa Mallick & Ors. v. Union of India (FMA 1315 of 2025)Click here to read order

Railways Can't Deny Accident Compensation Merely By Disputing Recovery Of Deceased's Ticket: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

Railways Can't Deny Accident Compensation Merely By Disputing Recovery Of Deceased's Ticket: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers