Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The Supreme Court has set aside the judgement of the Railway Claims Tribunal on a claim petition and the order passed by the MP high court at Jabalpur on the appeal, allowing the claim petition in part and directing the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.8 lakh to the appellants-applicants.
The apex court was hearing an appeal challenging the HC’s dismissal of the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the appellant’s husband in an alleged railway accident.
As per the case, the appellant’s husband purchased a second-class ticket at Indore railway junction for Ujjain in Ranthambore Express. It was alleged that due to overcrowding, he was pushed out of the running train, within the jurisdiction of Narwar police station, Ujjain district, resulting in fatal head injuries.
Post-mortem examination report cited death due to profuse haemorrhage and shock consequent to head injury. The widow and her minor son filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, seeking compensation of Rs 12 lakh.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger. No ticket was recovered from his person or belongings and the photocopy of the ticket was considered doubtful as there was no seizure memo and the investigating officer was not examined.
The Tribunal also noticed inconsistencies in the record regarding the place of the incident. The claimants then approached the high court, which dismissed the appeal. They then moved the apex court.
The SC observed that the Railways, as an instrumentality of the state, could not defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses.
A division bench of justices Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria held that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verified the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway administration.
The court explained that the absence of a seizure memo or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence could not by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supported the claimants’ version.
