7 Yrs After Husband's Accidental Death By Falling From Running Train, Jharkhand High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation To Widow
The Jharkhand High Court has granted Rs 8 Lakh along with interest as compensation to the widow of a man who died in 2017 after accidentally falling from a running train, setting aside a decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected her claim. In doing so the high court ruled that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, despite the absence of a ticket during the inquest...
The Jharkhand High Court has granted Rs 8 Lakh along with interest as compensation to the widow of a man who died in 2017 after accidentally falling from a running train, setting aside a decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected her claim.
In doing so the high court ruled that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, despite the absence of a ticket during the inquest report.
While delivering the judgement, a single judge bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, “As such, this fact is well proved that the deceased was bona fide passenger. Even if the ticket was not recovered from his person while preparing the inquest report of the deceased. Mere filing of the affidavit on behalf of the claimant (appellant wife) is sufficient to raise the presumption that the deceased was bona fide passenger. Neither oral nor any documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent to show that the deceased was not bona fide passenger. Initial burden having been discharged on behalf of the appellants, the burden of proof is shifted upon the respondent to prove the fact that the deceased was not bona fide passenger.”
The ruling came in a miscellaneous appeal moved by the appellant wife against the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench's dismissal of her claim for compensation. The Tribunal in its 2019 order had held that the deceased–Shambhu Sahni, was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was not an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The appellant wife filed the claim petition under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, as per which on June 7, 2017 Sahni had boarded the Howrah-Gaya Express at Sahibganj Junction with a valid second-class ticket purchased by his brother for a journey to Pirpainti Station. As the train neared Pirpainti, the deceased moved towards the door of the train to alight. Due to a crowd of passengers gathering near the door, there was intense jostling, causing Sahni to lose his balance and he accidentally fell down from the moving train between Ammapali Halt and Pirpainti Station. He sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
Upon being informed of the incident, the wife and family members identified the body of Shambhu Sahni. The local rail police registered an Unnatural Death (UD) case; Following the postmortem, the body was handed over to the family and cremated. She deposed in her affidavit that the valid ticket of her deceased husband was lost during the untoward incident.
The Court, in its judgement, observed that while the respondent's written statement claimed the deceased had died while crossing the railway track, the documentary evidence provided by the Railways showed that the untoward incident occurred when the deceased fell from a running train between Sahebganj and Pirpainti Station.
The Court noted, “From the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent, the presumption in regard to bona fide passenger raised in favour of the appellants is not found rebutted."
The Court further noted that, based on the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in the UD case, the untoward incident occurred when the deceased fell from the running train. The court said that the claimant wife had discharged the burden of proof by submitting an affidavit asserting that the deceased had purchased a ticket and was traveling as a bona fide passenger. The affidavit stated that the deceased fell from the train due to jostling by other passengers near the gate as they attempted to disembark.
The Court concluded, “the presumption in favour of the appellants in regard to being the bona fide passenger will be raised. On behalf of the respondent the burden of proof which shifted on it, has not rebutted and the presumption of being not bona fide passenger by not adducing the cogent evidence.”
The Court also held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs, along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition up to the date of the order, and 6% per annum from the date of the order until actual payment.
Referring to the applicable rules, the Court observed, “in view of Notification No. G.S.R. 1165(E) dated 22nd December, 2016 with effect from 1st January, 2017 Rule 3(2) of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 the words “rupees four lakh”, has been substituted with the words “rupees eight lakh”.”
The Court added, “Since this untoward incident occurred on 7th June 2017, after the enforcement of Notification No. G.S.R. 1165(E), the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs along with interest as specified.”
Based on its analysis of the evidence on record, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgement passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench.
Case Title: Kavita Devi @ Kabbo Devi and Ors vs Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 158