Kerala High Court
Daisy Jacob vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2025
MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 1
2025:KER:33307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1947
MFA (RCT) NO. 139 OF 2017
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2017 IN O.A.
(II-U)51/2016 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS IN OA:
1 DAISY JACOB
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.JACOB,
ASANPARAMBU,CHANGAMKARI,
EDATHUA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 689 573
2 JITHIN JACOB
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O JACOB,
ASANPARAMBU,CHANGAMKARI, EDATHUA P.O.
ALAPPUZHA- 689 573
3 JISHAMOL JACOB
AGED 22 YEARS
D/O.JACOB, ASANPARAMBU,CHANGAMKARI,
EDATHUA P.O., ALAPPUZHA- 689 573
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN
SRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
SMT.S.LEKSHMI RAJAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN OA:
THE UNION OF INDIA
OWNING SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER,
CHENNAI- 600 003
MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 2
2025:KER:33307
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE, SC, RAILWAYS
SRI.S.BIJU, SCGC
THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 3
2025:KER:33307
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2025 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2017 in OA (II-U) 51/2016 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. On 21.05.2016, Jacob, aged 51 years, while on his train journey from Ambalapuzha to his workplace Thiruvananthapuram, accidentally fell down from the train due to a heavy jerk when the train was near the Thakazhi railway gate and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. The train ticket and the bag of the deceased were lost in the accident. Applicants who are the wife and children of deceased Jacob, moved the RCT claiming Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Jacob. The respondent filed a reply contending that no 'untoward incident' was reported on 21.05.2016. No incident as alleged had been reported by the railway administration to the local police and no records were available in MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 4 2025:KER:33307 any railway station about the incident. There is nothing to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as nothing has been mentioned about the travel ticket in the inquest report. The respondents denied that the deceased was travelling by the train or that death had resulted from a fall from the train. They denied liability to pay any compensation. The RCT framed four issues and the parties proceeded to adduce evidence. PW1 was examined from the part of the applicants and documents A1 to A7 were marked. From their side the respondent, the DRM report was marked as Ext. R1. No oral evidence was adduced. After hearing both sides, the RCT dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is filed.
3. Heard Sri.V.K. Balachandran, Advocate for the appellants/ applicants and Sri.S.Biju, Advocate, SCGC for the respondent Railways.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the findings of the RCT are contrary to facts, law and evidence tendered. The conclusion arrived at by the RCT that the applicants MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 5 2025:KER:33307 failed to substantiate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid ticket and had fallen from the train is erroneous. It had been the specific case of the appellants that the journey ticket purchased by the deceased had been lost in the accident, as the bag carried by him was also lost. The RCT had termed it as unusual for the deceased to travel to his place of work on a weekend noting that the accident happened on the night between a Saturday and Sunday. The evidence in the form of a statement tendered by two witnesses to the police that the deceased had told them that he was going to attend his Company Manager's daughter's engagement was overlooked. The DRM's report had been accepted by the RCT blindly without noting the fact that no one had been examined so as to substantiate any of the statements therein. The RCT overlooked the final report filed by the local police before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha, wherein it had been specifically stated that the deceased had fallen down from the train and had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. The RCT had erroneously laid much stress on the minor variations in the statements given by the witnesses to the police and to the railway police force. RCT MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 6 2025:KER:33307 overlooked that there were no major contradictions or omissions in these said statements. The RCT had highlighted the minor contradictions and had doubted the claim put forth by the applicants. As regards the absence of travel ticket, the RCT had overlooked the trite and settled law that the burden is on the shoulders of the railways and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate inquiry into the cause of the incident. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported in Girija v. Union of India [MFA (RCT) No.96 of 2014 dated 26.02.2024 of this Court], Union of India v. A.Geetha and others [2017 (3) KHC 303] , Union of India v. Leelamma [2009 (1) KLT 914] , Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [2008 (2) KLT 700 SC], Sunitha C. and others v. Union of India [2016 (3) KLT 791], Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KHC 920]. The learned counsel thus sought to set aside the impugned judgment of the RCT and to allow the prayer of the applicants for compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned SCGC appearing for the railways, strenuously opposed the contentions put forth by the applicants and contended that the order of the RCT does not require any MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 7 2025:KER:33307 interference. The applicants had not produced either the journey ticket or any deposition to establish that the deceased travelled based on a valid journey ticket on the incident date. No report had been launched either about the loss of the bag or the journey ticket as well as regarding the fall from the train. There had been evident inconsistencies in the statements recorded during the inquiry by the railway police force as well as in the statements given to the local police. While the project manager of Delta M. Sand, wherein the deceased is alleged to have been employed as supervisor, had stated that he had left the job in that firm as early as in March 2016 on health ground and thereafter they had no contact with him, the wife of the deceased had deposed before the RCT that the deceased had never quit the job and in fact he was on the job at the time of the aforesaid occurrence. The RCT had noted the fact that the accident had occurred in a night between a Saturday and a Sunday, and hence, had rightly concluded that there was no cause or reason for the deceased to travel to his workplace during the weekend. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad v. Union of India [(2014) SCC OnLine MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 8 2025:KER:33307 Del 127], wherein it had been held that there is no provision in the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, nor any ratio of any judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mandates that the initial onus in a claim petition is not on the applicants but on the railways. The learned counsel for the railways thus submitted that the findings arrived at by the RCT are incontrovertible and the appeal is only to be dismissed.
6. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. At the outset it is to be noted that the proceedings under the Railways Act are not adversarial or litigative proceedings at all. A Division Bench of this Court in Jayalakshmi and another v. Union of India. [2011(2) KHC 706] had in this respect held as follows:
"An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this respect, it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003 (as amended in 2007). Rule 7 to Rule 10 clearly shows that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an inquiry/ investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us, it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 9 2025:KER:33307 away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for inquiry /investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But the burden is placed on the shoulders of the railway and its officials to contact a proper inquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to the amounts or not." (emphasis added)
7. What follows from the above dictum is that when the local police submits a final report after inquiring into the incident, the same cannot be simply brushed aside stating that the travel ticket had not been produced and hence there is no evidence that the victim/ injured person was a bona fide passenger. The investigation and submission of a report by the police under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules is not a mere formality and the report carries its own evidentiary value and weight.
8. 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, MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 10 2025:KER:33307 lucidly encapsulated the law on the point in Girija's case (supra). 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 evidence. In Girija's case (supra) this Court had taken note of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad's case (supra) 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 MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 11 2025:KER:33307 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. It is thus well settled that the initial burden on the claimant will be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. In A.Geetha's case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the burden to adduce proof to the contrary is squarely on the shoulders of the railway and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate inquiry into the cause of the incident. When neither the railway nor its officials have conducted an inquiry of this nature, it is highly improper on them to blame the claimants for their inaction. In Leelamma's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had held that as per Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, untoward incident includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. As regards the MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 12 2025:KER:33307 burden to prove that the victim was a bonafide passenger, it was held therein as follows:
"The question muted for consideration is whether due to the mere non-production of the ticket an adverse inference can be drawn by the Tribunal that the person who got injured and succumbed to death was travelling without a valid journey ticket and that he was not a bona fide passenger. According to the claimants, the deceased was holding journey ticket and the same was lost in the accident. The normal presumption is that a passenger in a railway holds a valid ticket. When the appellant respondent contends that the deceased was a passenger who fell down while attempting to board a train, the burden is heavily upon them to prove that he attempted such journey without purchasing a ticket. Since that burden is not discharged by the railway, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in rejecting the contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway Tribunal in such cases are perfectly justified in drawing a presumption that the person concerned was travelling or attempting to travel with a valid ticket and in such case the passenger cannot be termed as a not a bona fide passenger." (emphasis added)
9. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provision of compensation in the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial piece of legislation and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and it is covered by the main body of Section 124A and not its proviso. In Sunitha's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 13
2025:KER:33307 "Since the railway claims tribunals have been set up to consider cases of accidental death and injury in railway accidents We are of the opinion, as is fortified by the decisions of the Apex Court and the various High Courts, including that of this Court, that the endeavour of the Tribunal should be not to deny compensation to unfortunate victims. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the claim petition is completely unjustified." (emphasis added)
10. There was legally reliable evidence before the RCT by way of the report of the local police that the deceased had been a passenger on board the train and had fallen down from the said train leading to his death. The said evidence had its prima facie worth and value. As regards the question whether the deceased was holding a valid journey ticket and was thus a bona fide passenger, insofar as the applicants had filed an affidavit stating the material facts that relate to the journey of the deceased, wherein they had stated that the journey ticket as well as the bag of the deceased had been lost in the confusion that followed his fall the burden, as laid down by the precedents discussed above, had shifted on to the respondent. The said burden had not been discharged by the respondent. The RCT erred in concluding that the incident had not happened and also that the deceased was not a bona fide MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 14 2025:KER:33307 passenger. The judgment of the RCT is incorrect, legally unsustainable and fit to be set aside.
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's case (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 claims cases. It was further held that if the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed 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 21.05.2016. The compensation payable at the relevant time was Rs.4 lakhs. The interest of @ 6 % from 21.05.2016 to 25.02.2025 comes to Rs.2,10,000/-. Thus the total amount due is Rs.6,10,000/-. Hence the applicants are entitled to the higher compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 15
2025:KER:33307
12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 13.10.2017 in OA (II-U)/51/2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Ernakulam Bench is set aside. The claim petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- 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) Allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl