Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the parents of a passenger who died in a railway accident were entitled to compensation, directing payment of Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest. The Court addressed a claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, noting that the death occurred after the passenger mistakenly boarded a train that did not stop at his intended station. Rejecting the Railways’ defence that the incident resulted from the passenger’s own attempt to deboard a moving train, the Court confirmed that such allegations were unproven and did not bar compensation.

The matter arose from a claim filed by the parents of a 23-year-old passenger who died in a railway accident on 29 May 2013. They sought compensation under Section 16G of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, asserting that their son had travelled with a valid ticket purchased for the journey from Satna to Maihar. The claim was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, where the Railways contested liability.

Also Read: Test Identification Proceedings Unreliable If Accused Seen Earlier; Prior Statements Must Be Sent Electronically To Witness In Virtual Examination: Supreme Court

The Railways argued that the deceased had mistakenly boarded an express train that did not halt at Maihar and, upon realising this, attempted to deboard the moving train. According to the Railways, the fatal injuries sustained were attributable to his own negligence, attracting the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. They relied on these provisions to deny compensation, asserting that the death amounted to a self-inflicted injury.

The Tribunal examined oral and documentary evidence, including the DRM report confirming that the deceased held a valid ticket and died due to injuries from the railway incident. The two Tribunal members concluded that the deceased remained a bona fide passenger despite boarding the wrong train. A differing view by another member resulted in a reference to the Chairman, whose opinion aligned with the majority.

The Railways challenged these findings before the High Court, which accepted their contentions and reversed the Tribunal’s decision. The parents then approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of the Tribunal’s findings.

The Court recorded: “there was no dispute to the fact that the deceased having purchased a valid ticket to travel from Satna to Maihar.” It then referred to the evidence establishing that the deceased had mistakenly boarded another express train arriving on the same platform. The Court stated: “on the relevant date… another express train has also entered the platform in which the deceased was standing and by mistake obviously having seen the train having arrived at the same platform he has boarded the train to travel to Maihar.”

The Court relied on the DRM report, noting: “The DMR Report would also indicate that the deceased had in fact purchased a railway ticket and had expired due to the injuries sustained in the railway accident.” It recorded agreement with the Tribunal’s majority view, observing that “both the members of the tribunal held in favour of the claimants, by arriving at a conclusion that deceased was a bona fide passenger.” The Court added: “Merely because the deceased had boarded a wrong train, it cannot be construed that he was not a bona fide passenger.”

Addressing the Railways’ allegation that the deceased had jumped from the moving train, the Court stated that the contention “though, at first blush looks attractive, we are not inclined to accept the same.” It recorded the absence of proof supporting this plea: “it was incumb­ent upon the railway authorities to prove the same. However, the DRM Report is also silent on this aspect.” It further observed: “no sane person could have attempted to deboard or alight from a running train that too an express train.”

The Court then stated its view regarding the Tribunal’s finding: “The two members of the tribunal have rightly held that the railway authorities are required to pay the compensation.” It concluded that the High Court’s contrary view could not be sustained, recording: “the finding recorded by the High Court… would not stand the test of law.”

Also Read: Unauthorized Detention Violates Article 21; Patna High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation For Six-Day Illegal Custody And Directs IG Prisons To Issue Statewide Guidelines

The Court stated: “the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.2023 is hereby set aside. The amount of compensation as ordered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, namely, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-… is ordered to be paid to the claimants… which amount shall carry interest @9% from the date of original award till the date of payment or deposit.”

“The respondent(s) shall transfer the said amount to the accounts of the appellant(s)… within an outer limit of three months from today. The aforestated order is passed in the peculiar facts obtained in this case, namely, the deceased having boarded a wrong train.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR; Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv.; Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv.; Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv.; Ms. Aditi Soni, Adv.; Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv.; Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G.; Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.; Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv.; Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv.; Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Adv.; Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv.; Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

Case Title: Shrikumar Gupta & Anr. v. Union of India
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7188/2024 (arising into Civil Appeal)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria