Not A Bona Fide Passenger: Gauhati High Court Denies Compensation Over Death Of Man Who Fell From Moving Train And Was Subsequently Run Over

The Gauhati High Court recently upheld a judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal by which it denied compensation to the father of a deceased who fell down from a running train and was run over by the said train, on the ground that the aspect of the deceased being a bona fide passenger was not proved in accordance with law.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted:

“An accident by involvement of a train, per se will not entail payment of compensation and it is only when the conditions are fulfilled under the Act and the settled principles of law that such claims can be considered.”

The deceased- son of the claimant, had purchased a ticket at Naharkotia and had boarded the 902 Dn Passenger to Borhat. However, due to the commotion of the passengers inside the train, he fell down and as a result, he succumbed to his injuries. At the request of the family members, no post-mortem was done. Thereafter, the claim was lodged before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati.

However, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated April 17, 2012, rejected the claim. The claimant-appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Accident Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the said order of the Tribunal.

The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that AW2 (the brother of deceased) had deposed that he had accompanied the deceased to the Naharkotia Railway Station and saw the deceased purchasing a railway ticket for the 902 Dn Passenger Train. It was argued that the burden of proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger being duly discharged in accordance with law, there was no reason to reject the claim made by the claimant-appellant.

On the other hand, the Standing Counsel, Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there are no materials on record to come to a conclusion regarding the assertion made by the claimant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

It was further submitted that the claim was upon an assertion that the death was caused by the accident in which, the deceased was run over by the concerned train, however, practically impossible for a passenger to fall down and be run over by the same train.

The Standing Counsel argued that the claimant had failed to discharge his burden and no inquest report was produced. It was further stated that no ticket was produced to claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

The Court noted that to sustain a claim before a Railway Claims Tribunal, it is mandatory to prove, at least, prima facie that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

“In the instant case, there is a specific report marked as 'R1' as per which, no ticket was issued on that particular date from Naharkotia to Borhat which was claimed on behalf of the appellant-claimant. In view of such rebuttal evidence which was not contested, it is difficult to come to a concrete conclusion regarding the aspect of the deceased being a bona fide passenger in favour of the claimant,” the Court said.

The Court observed that there is not even an Inquest Report which was proved or produced by the claimant.

“However, since GRPS case was registered in this case, being GD Case No. 348, dated 21.10.2007, the production and proving of the Inquest Report was necessary to come to any conclusion which could have been a factor for consideration if the version projected by the claimant was bona fide and acceptable,” it added.

The Court noted that in the present case, the aspect of the deceased being a bona fide passenger was itself not proved in accordance with law and the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who had succumbed to his injuries being run over, does not appear to be an acceptable and believable projection.

“The learned Tribunal being seized with the facts and circumstances and the evidence on records had come to a conclusion and unless, such conclusion is prima facie against the materials on record or perverse, this Court, being an Appellate Court may not interfere such findings in a routine manner,” the Court held.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 42

Case Title: Bikash Choudhury v. Union of India

Case No.: MFA/86/2012

Click Here To Read/Download Order