Burden to prove ticketless travel in accident cases upon Railway authorities: Madras HC

In an order passed recently, the Madras High Court reiterated that in Railway accident cases, the burden lies upon the Railway administration to prove that the deceased victim was not a bona fide passenger, if it makes an accusation to this effect..Justice M Duraiswamy held the same while disposing of an appeal filed on behalf of the family of a 14-year old boy who died in a train accident. The boy had succumbed to multiple injuries sustained after he accidentally fell off a train travelling between Kodambakkam and Nungambakkam..A compensation claim made before the Railway Claims Tribunal in 2014 had been dismissed on the ground that the claimants were unable to produce the train ticket purchased by the deceased. For this reason, the Tribunal had concluded that the boy was not a bona fide passenger and was therefore not entitled to compensation..On appeal, the petitioners submitted that the train ticket purchased by the deceased was lost in the course of the accident and therefore could not be produced while making a claim..Advocate Sanjay Pinto, who appeared for the appellants, further contended that the non-production of the train ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants. This was because the burden of proof lies on the Railways Tribunal to establish that the victim was not a bona fide passenger..Pinto relied on a number of precedents to make his case, including Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar, Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate, P Rosi v. Union of India, General Manager v. V Lakshmana Rao and Union of India v. Leelamma..It was argued that the Tribunal had overlooked settled principles of law and forced the claimants to approach appellate authorities over what was a denial of beneficial legislation..The Court noted that the term ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act ought not be given a narrow interpretation, and would include within its scope the accidental falling of any passenger from a train. Hence, the same would be liable for compensation under Section 124A..“By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression, we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act…”.After examining the material on record, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that,.“The Apex Court as well as this Court had repeatedly held that the burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways and that non-production of Railway ticket is no fatal to the case of the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the petition on that ground.”.The matter was therefore remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for determining the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal was ordered to consider the matter afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders within three months..Read Order.