Kerala High Court
Abdul Rahman vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2025
MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 1
2025:KER:47597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
MFA (RCT) NO.164 OF 2012
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2012 IN OA
(IIu)/ERS/2012/0038 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
BENCH
APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:
1 ABDUL RAHMAN
AGED 71 YEARS
F/O.DECEASED AYDRU @BASHEER
RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE, PUTHUR LAKSAM VEEDU
LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 MALU A
AGED 64 YEARS
M/O.DECEASED AYDRU @BASHEER
RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE, PUTHUR LAKSAM VEEDU
LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3 JASMINE P
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O.DECEASED AYDRU @BASHEER
RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE, PUTHUR LAKSAM VEEDU
LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
4 ANESHA FATHIMA
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O.DECEASED AYDRU @BASHEER
RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE,
PUTHUR LAKSAM VEEDU LAKKIDI,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
5 AJEESHA FATHIMA
AGED 12 YEARS
D/O.DECEASED AYDRU @BASHEER
RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE,
PUTHUR LAKSAM VEEDU LAKKIDI,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 2
2025:KER:47597
6 AMEESHA FATHIMA
AGED 10 YEARS
D/O.DECEASED AYDRU @BASHEER
RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE, PUTHUR LAKSAM VEEDU
LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT PARAKUNDIL HOUSE, PUTHUR
LAKSAM VEEDU LAKKIDI OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
AND 4 TO 6 MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN 3RD APPELLANT JASMINE P
BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI 600001
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SC, RAILWAYS
SRI.C.DINESH, CGC
THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON 01.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 3
2025:KER:47597
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2025 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.09.2012 in OA. (II u)/ERS/2012/0038 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Ernakulam Bench. Appellants were the applicants before the RCT. Respondent was the respondent therein. Parties are referred to according to their status before the RCT.
2. Applicant's case in brief is as follows:
Aydru @ Basheer had gone to Pattambi in search of employment, and on his way back, he visited his mother's house at Ottapalam. In the evening, while returning from Pattambi to Lakkidi along with his friend in Mangalore Coimbatore passenger train, when the train left Ottapalam Railway Station, he accidentally fell down from the train and got seriously injured. He later died in the Government Hospital, Ottapalam. The deceased was working as a coolie and was the sole breadwinner of his family, which consisted of his aged parents, wife and three minor daughters. The deceased was a bona fide passenger. The applicants are his family members and legal heirs. They sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 4 2025:KER:47597 his death, claiming the same to be an untoward incident.
3. Respondents denied any liability and refuted the averments. They contended that on 07.01.2011, the Station Master attached to Ottapalam Railway Station issued a message that one man came running and tried to entrain train No.56324 passenger at Ottapalam, fell down and got under the coach. Passengers shouted and asked the guard to stop the train and the train was stopped. Local police came and took the injured to the hospital, where he succumbed. The deceased was travelling without any valid travelling authority. The ticket produced reveal that the same was for travel from Pattambi to Lakkidi. Since the incident occurred at Ottapalam Railway Station, it was contended that there was a break in the journey. As per the break journey rules, a passenger is not permitted to break his journey before 300 Kms. The ticket produced by the applicants is invalid and hence the purported travel in the train was without authority. Respondents thus sought a dismissal of the application.
4. The RCT framed five issues and the parties proceeded to tender evidence. Applicants examined as PW1 and PW2. Exts.A1 to MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 5 2025:KER:47597 A9 were marked on their side. Respondents did not examine any witnesses. Ext.R1, which was the report of the DRM was marked. After hearing both sides, the RCT concluded that though the deceased had met with the accident at Ottapalam Railway Station and had died, the ticket produced by the applicants cannot be accepted as a valid travelling authority as the ticket/ evidence does not indicate as to how and why the deceased was boarding from Ottapalam. It was concluded by the RCT that either the ticket is not genuine or the deceased had made a journey break at Ottapalam. If the ticket is not genuine, then the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. On the other hand, if there was a break in the journey, it means that the ticket is invalid since a journey break is not permitted for a journey less than 300 Km. In either case, it reveals that he was not a bona fide passenger. It was thus held by the RCT that even if the applicants prove that they are dependents of the deceased, they are not entitled to any relief as sought in the O.A. Resultantly, the O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the RCT, this appeal has been preferred by the applicants.
5. Heard Sri.R.Sreehari, Advocate, for the appellants/ MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 6 2025:KER:47597 applicants and Sri.T.V. Vinu, Advocate, SCGC for the respondent Railways.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the judgment of the RCT is perverse, illegal and arbitrary. The same had been rendered by overlooking the law as well as the facts. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the dictum in Union of India v. Parameswaran [2012 (4) KLT SN 25 (C.No.25)], wherein it had been held that the passenger is to be presumed as bonafide passenger unless it is shown otherwise. In Union of India v. Leelamma [2009 (1) KLT 914], it has been held that merely because the ticket is lost during the accident, the passenger cannot be labelled as not a bona fide passenger and the burden in this respect lies on the Railways.
7. The learned SCGC appearing for the Railways, vehemently contended that the order of the RCT does not require any interference as it has been rendered after proper appreciation of the facts and law. He made submissions in line with the contentions put forth before the RCT.
8. I have heard both sides in detail. The principal finding of MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 7 2025:KER:47597 the RCT, while dismissing the application, was that though a passenger ticket of the deceased had been produced, the same cannot be relied upon as the same is not free from doubt. The RCT had turned down the contention of the applicants that the deceased was travelling from Pattambi to Lakkidi on the premise that the ticket produced is a general ticket and it does not indicate any name. The RCT concluded that such a ticket could be collected from any passenger and can be produced subsequently along with the O.A. Based on the above reasoning, the RCT held that the intention of the applicants comes in question. RCT further proceeded to rely on Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and concluded that the compensation is payable only if a passenger is injured, killed in an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. It was held that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased was trying to board the train from Ottapalam Railway Station and met with the accident and the ticket produced cannot be accepted as valid travelling authority as ticket/evidence does not indicate how and why he happened to board the train from Ottapalam. It was concluded that either the ticket is not genuine or MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 8 2025:KER:47597 the deceased had made a break in the journey at Ottapalam. RCT thus held that in either case it points out that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Holding thus, the Tribunal had opined that the applicants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid travelling authority.
9. The question as to what circumstances would justify a victim of a railway accident to be termed as bonafide passenger in the absence of travel/ journey tickets is no longer re integra. This court had after a detailed survey of the precedents on the point, lucidly encapsulated the law on the point in Girija v. Union of India [MFA (RCT) No.96 of 2014 dated 26.02.2024 of this Court]. In the said case, the claimant had filed an affidavit before the RCT wherein it is stated that her son was holding a general compartment ticket for the journey from Quilandy to Vadakara, which had been lost at the time of the accident, and that she was not in a position to produce the ticket. She also requested that the production of the ticket be dispensed with. This Court had held that the said affidavit is sufficient to discharge the initial burden on the part of the claimant especially since the respondents had not chosen to let in any contra MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 9 2025:KER:47597 evidence. In Girija's case (supra) this Court had taken note of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad and others v. Union of India [(2014) SCC OnLine Del 127] and had opined that the legal position has been to a certain extent set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KLT 1060] wherein various conflicting views of the different High Courts had been examined and it had been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had therein held that there is an initial burden on the claimant which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and the burden will then shift onto the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown and on the attending circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the approach should be to deal on a case-by-case basis based on the facts proved.
10. In the case at hand the applicants have produced a MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 10 2025:KER:47597 journey ticket stating the same to have been used by the deceased for the relevant journey. The RCT however termed the same as unreliable and invalid on the premise that it is a general ticket and does not indicate anybodys name. It could be collected from any passenger and could have been produced subsequently. This conclusion arrived at by RCT has no valid and reliable basis. The same is only a surmise lacking any verifiable basis. Merely because general tickets issued by the Railway does not carry the name of the passenger, the same cannot be a reason to doubt the bonafides of the passenger or to doubt the veracity of the travel. The burden is on the railway to railway to prove the contention that the ticket produced by the applicants is not a genuine one. The passenger or his legal heirs cannot be mulcted with the obligation of proving the ticket produced was infact the one that was used by the deceased person. Admittedly there was a ticket produced to prove that the deceased was travelling from Pattambi to Lakkidi. The incident had happened at Ottapalam Railway Station which falls in between. The allegation of break in the journey put forth by the respondent had not been sustantiated in any manner known to law. The reliance by the MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 11 2025:KER:47597 RCT on the purported break in journey to decline the claim of the applicants is thus unsustainable. The case at hand is one where the deceased had admittedly fallen down from the train right within the Railway Station and had died consequent to injuries suffered. The applicants being the legal heirs had produced the relevant passenger ticket and had averred their claim in an affidavit. The reasons stated by the RCT to denounce the ticket and their claim are not substantiated by any reliable evidence. In view of the above facts and the settled legal position, the conclusion arrived at by the RCT can only be termed as erroneous and unsustainable in law.
11. As regards compensation payable under the Act at the time of the incident, the same was Rs.4,00,000/-. Subsequently, the same stands enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- by virtue of an amendment. In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered cases where the amendment has come into force pending consideration of a claim and it was concluded that the compensation will be payable as was applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. It was further held that if the amount so MFA (RCT) NO.164/2012 12 2025:KER:47597 calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. I note that the accident occurred on 07.01.2011. The compensation payable at the relevant time was Rs.4,00,000/-. The interest @ 6% from 07.01.2011 to 01.07.2025 is Rs.3,47,600/-. Thus the total amount due is Rs.7,47,600/-. Hence the applicants are entitled to higher compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
12. In view of the above, the judgment dated 19.09.2012 in O.A. (IIu)/ERS/2012/0038 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Ernakulam Bench is hereby set aside. The claim petition is allowed, directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicants within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the payment is not made within the aforesaid time, the same shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this judgment till the date of payment.
MFA (RCT) is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl