Railway Accident| Claimants Entitled To Benefit Of Higher Compensation Prescribed After Date Of Incident: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that in railway accident compensation claimants, if the compensation claimed is less than the compensation prescribed as on the date of the decision, then they are entitled to the higher amount.

The claimants claimed Rs. 4 Lakhs compensation as applicable on the date of the incident (of the year 2003) as per Schedule I of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990. However, the Railways enhanced the compensation as Rs. 8 Lakhs in 2016.

Taking a cue from Rina Devi's judgment, the court said that when the compensation granted on the date of award is higher than the compensation as applicable on the date of the incident, then the claimants would be entitled to receive higher compensation granted on the date of award. Hence, a grant of Rs. 8 Lakhs was justified by the court.

The Supreme Court also observed that non-recovery of a train ticket from the deceased body would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

The Court said that once the dependents of the deceased i.e., claimants discharge the initial burden of proof by filing an affidavit based on the investigation reports that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train and his death was caused by a fall from the running train in question, then the burden of proof shifts to the Railways to discharge the onus of proving the fact that the deceased was not travelling.

“In Rina Devi (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.”, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

In the present case, the claimants had filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was traveling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel.

Therefore the Court said that “the burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted.”

Upon finding corroboration in the post-mortem and Investigation Officer's report about the deceased sustaining injuries due to a fall from a running train, the court concluded that “the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question and that he sustained grave injuries leading to his death, due to his fall from the train. Compensation is therefore due to the appellant.”

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhinav Hansaria, Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Ishaan Swarana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Shantu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

Case Details: Doli Rani Saha Versus Union of India, Civil Appeal No 8605 of 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Click here to read/download the order