Railways Can't Deny Compensation To Kin Of Deceased Passenger On 'Bald Plea' Of Possible Suicide Without Proof: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that an assertion by the Railways that a deceased passenger probably committed suicide is not enough to deny compensation to the family under Section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989 in absence of any proof. The court further said that once claimants place material showing that the victim was travelling on a valid ticket and died in an accidental fall, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise. Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy observed:“Admittedly, even the railway authorities failed to produce any material either to establish that the deceased committed suicide or to establish that the deceased did not travel in the said train or that the deceased did not fall from the running train. Mere assertion that the deceased committed suicide is not sufficient to deny the compensation...The initial burden, which rested on the applicants, to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that his death occurred in an untoward incident, stood duly discharged through the consistent oral evidence of AWs 1 and 2, coupled with the contemporaneous documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3. Upon such discharge, the burden shifted to the respondent Railways, to rebut the presumption by placing cogent and reliable evidence on record. However, except for a bald plea of suicide falling within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Act, no substantive evidence has been adduced to probabalise such a defense.”Allowing the appeal filed by the parents of the deceased, the Court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing their claim and awarded them compensation of Rs.8 lakh.The case concerned the death of U. Balaji on 23.05.2015. According to his parents, he had purchased a passenger ticket from Adoni to Nagarur, boarded Train No.57427 (Raichur–Guntakal Passenger), and accidentally fell from the running train due to heavy rush, speed jolts and sudden jerks. They claimed compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.The Railways resisted the claim, contending that there was no proof that the deceased had travelled in the train, and suggesting that the death “may be suicide,” which would fall within the statutory exceptions. It also argued that the ticket found with the deceased was only up to Nagarur, while the body was found beyond that point.The High Court found those objections unsustainable. It noted that a valid passenger ticket bearing No.68013731 from Adoni to Nagarur was recovered from the body, and that the father of the deceased, examined as AW1, consistently deposed that his son had boarded the train and fallen from it. Nothing useful was elicited in cross-examination to discredit that version.Significantly, the Court pointed out that even the inquest report prepared in the presence of railway officials recorded that the deceased, unable to get down due to rush of passengers, “slipped and accidentally fell down” after Nagarur. Forms I and II submitted by the railway authorities also treated the case as one of accidental fall. The Court noted there was “no whisper” in the documentary evidence suggesting suicide.The Court also relied on the evidence of a Railway Police Sub-Inspector who had registered the case and was a panch witness to the inquest. Though a newspaper clipping had mentioned that a student “jumped” from the train, AW2 clarified that the police had issued a corrected version, which unfortunately was not published. The Court found that there was no material showing any reason that would have driven the deceased to commit suicide.Dealing with the Railways' reliance on the Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) report, the Court found that report to be of weak evidentiary value. While the accident occurred on 23.05.2015 and the claim application was filed on 17.06.2015, the DRM report was prepared only on 17.03.2016, nearly ten months later. The Court held that such a belated report, prepared contrary to the statutory framework and railway instructions requiring timely investigation, could not be used to defeat a claim under a beneficial legislation.On the argument that the deceased had travelled beyond his destination, the Court held that this too did not defeat the claim. Relying on precedent, it observed that even if a passenger over-travels beyond the destination mentioned in the ticket, that by itself does not make him a non-bona fide passenger.The Court ultimately held that the materials on record, including the FIR, inquest report and post-mortem report, “unmistakably establish” that the deceased accidentally fell from passenger train No.57427 and died on the spot, and that the incident squarely fell within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act.On compensation, the Court noted that the accident had occurred before the 2016 amendment enhancing compensation for death from Rs.4 Lakh to Rs.8 Lakh. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Radha Yadav, it held that the...

Railways Can't Deny Compensation To Kin Of Deceased Passenger On 'Bald Plea' Of Possible Suicide Without Proof: Telangana High Court

Ananya Tangri

Tags