Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Union Of India vs Rina Devi on 9 May, 2018
(iii) On the issue of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal appears to
have laid undue and erroneous emphasis upon the non-production
of a valid travel ticket. The law on this point now stands
conclusively crystallised by the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Rina Devi2wherein it was categorically held that, in cases of railway
accidents or untoward incidents, the travel ticket is often lost,
misplaced, or destroyed in the course of the mishap. The Court,
therefore, held that the status of a bona fide passenger need not be
established by direct documentary evidence alone, but may also be
inferred from circumstantial or oral evidence, such as eyewitness
accounts or surrounding attendant facts. Consequently, non-
recovery or non-production of the ticket, by itself, cannot be treated
as fatal to a claim for compensation, provided that the materials on
record reasonably indicate that the deceased or injured person was
a lawful passenger travelling with due authority.
Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) held that negligence, even gross
negligence, is not a defence available to the Railways under the
provision. Hence, once it is established that the death occurred due to
an "untoward incident" and the person was a bona fide passenger,
compensation becomes payable.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
The Court, while invoking the spirit of the
principle enunciated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4, observed that
such liability flows inexorably from the nature of the activity itself and
not from any act of negligence.
1