Supreme Court awards compensation in railway accident case: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 16 May 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17062/2022)

Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari

Can a railway accident victim’s family receive compensation if the victim’s ticket was not found on their body? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a man who fell from a train and died. The court clarified the burden of proof in such cases, ruling that the absence of a ticket does not automatically disqualify a claim for compensation. The bench comprised Justices Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, with the majority opinion authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

On September 27, 2014, Muchamy @ Muthusamy was traveling by train to Karur for medical treatment. His son, Manikandan, purchased a ticket for him from Lalapettai to Karur and handed it to him. While traveling on the Trichy-Erode Passenger train, Muchamy fell from the train at Mahadanapuram Railway Station. He sustained severe injuries, including decapitation and amputation of his right hand, leading to his death at the scene. The family filed a claim for compensation, which was initially rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, initially dismissed the claim, stating that the appellants failed to prove that the death resulted from an untoward incident and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this decision, agreeing that the findings of the Claims Tribunal were not perverse. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989: Defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
• Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989: States that the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for death or injury to passengers due to untoward incidents. It also clarifies that a ‘passenger’ includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket or a valid platform ticket.

The court emphasized that the Railways Act aims to provide compensation for passengers who suffer due to railway-related incidents, regardless of any wrongful act, neglect, or default by the Railway Administration.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the death was a result of an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, because the deceased fell from a running train.
• They contended that the son of the deceased, Manikandan (AW-1), had purchased a valid ticket of Rs. 10 and handed it over to his father at Lalapettai Railway Station for the journey to Karur, thus establishing the deceased as a bona fide passenger.
• They relied on the judgment of Union of India v. Rina Devi, arguing that the initial burden of proving the passenger was bona fide had been discharged, shifting the onus to the Railway Authorities, which they failed to do.
• They further cited UOI v. Radha Yadav, stating that since the death was due to an untoward incident and the deceased was a bona fide passenger, adequate compensation should be awarded.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellants failed to prove two necessary ingredients: first, that the deceased was a ‘bonafide passenger’, and second, that the death occurred due to an ‘untoward incident’.
• They contended that since the journey ticket was not found on the deceased, he could not be considered a bona fide passenger.
• They also argued that the nature of the injuries, particularly the decapitation, suggested that the death did not occur as a result of falling from a running train.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the death of the deceased was an outcome of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
3. What is the amount of compensation the appellants are entitled to?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572] – The court discussed the burden of proof when a body is found on railway premises, stating that the initial burden is on the claimant, but the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim.
  The court held that the initial burden is on the claimant to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, which can be discharged through an affidavit of relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove it.
• UOI v. Radha Yadav [(2019) 3 SCC 410] – The court reiterated the principle that when death is proven due to an untoward incident and the deceased was a bona fide passenger, adequate compensation should be awarded.
  The court held that if the amount calculated on the date of the accident with interest is less than the amount prescribed on the date of the award, the higher of the two amounts should be given.
• Raj Kumari v. Union of India [1992 SCC OnLine MP 96] – This case was considered by the court in Rina Devi regarding the burden of proof in railway accident cases.
• Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India [2014 SCC OnLine Del 101] – This case was considered by the court in Rina Devi regarding the burden of proof in railway accident cases.
• Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India [2011 SCC OnLine AP 828] – This case was considered by the court in Rina Devi regarding the burden of proof in railway accident cases.
• Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India [(2019) 12 SCC 391] – This case was considered by the court in Rina Devi regarding the burden of proof in railway accident cases.
• Raman Iron Foundry – The court discussed the point when a claim for unliquidated damages becomes a debt.
• Kesoram Industries – The court discussed when a liability to pay tax arises.
• Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi – The court discussed that the right to compensation arises on the date of the accident.
• Rathi Menon – The court discussed the point when the liability for compensation arises.
• Kalandi Charan Sahoo – The court discussed the point when the liability for compensation arises.
• Pratap Narain Singh Deo – The court discussed the principles of the Workmen Compensation Act.
• Union of India vs. Dilip and others [2019 SCC Online SC 2119] – The court reaffirmed the view taken in Rina Devi and Radha Yadav.

Statutes:

• Railways Act, 1989:
  • Section 123(c)(2): Defines “untoward incident.”
  • Section 124A: Specifies the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation for untoward incidents.
• Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990: Governs the compensation payable in railway accident cases.
• Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003: Governs the procedure for investigating untoward incidents.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572] to establish the principle that the initial burden of proof lies with the claimant, but the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim. The court used this case to determine that the appellants had discharged their initial burden, shifting the onus to the Railway Administration.
• The court cited UOI v. Radha Yadav [(2019) 3 SCC 410] to reiterate that when death is proven due to an untoward incident and the deceased was a bona fide passenger, adequate compensation should be awarded. The court used this case to support its decision to award compensation to the appellants.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Evidence of Untoward Incident: The FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and final report all supported the fact that the deceased fell from a running train, which constitutes an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
• Testimony of Son: The testimony of the deceased’s son, Manikandan (AW1), was crucial in establishing that he had purchased a ticket for his father, thus making him a bona fide passenger.
• Burden of Proof: The court emphasized that the initial burden of proof lies with the claimant, but once the claimant provides sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to disprove the claim.
• Beneficial Legislation: The court highlighted that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing compensation to victims of railway accidents and their families.

Logical Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and evidence presented, as well as the relevant legal provisions and precedents. The court emphasized that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and should be interpreted to provide relief to victims of railway accidents. The court also clarified the burden of proof in such cases, stating that while the initial burden lies with the claimant, it shifts to the Railway Administration once the claimant has provided sufficient evidence.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a ticket automatically negates a claim for compensation. It held that the son’s testimony, along with the other evidence, was sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The court also rejected the argument that the nature of the injuries suggested that the death did not occur as a result of falling from a running train. The court found that the evidence supported the claim that the deceased had fallen from a moving train, which is an untoward incident.

The court also considered the amended compensation rules, holding that the compensation should be calculated based on the date of the accident with reasonable interest, and if this amount is less than the amount prescribed on the date of the award, the higher of the two amounts should be given. This approach ensures that the claimant receives the maximum benefit under the law.

“We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.”

“Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.”

“Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as 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.”

Key Takeaways

• The absence of a ticket does not automatically disqualify a claim for compensation in railway accident cases.
• The initial burden of proof lies with the claimant, but it shifts to the Railway Administration once sufficient evidence is provided.
• The Railways Act is a beneficial legislation, and its provisions should be interpreted to provide maximum relief to victims of railway accidents.
• Compensation is to be calculated based on the date of the accident with reasonable interest, or the higher amount prescribed on the date of the award.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay the appellants a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The court also clarified that the compensation should be calculated based on the date of the accident with reasonable interest, and if this amount is less than the amount prescribed on the date of the award, the higher of the two amounts should be given.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies the burden of proof in railway accident cases, particularly regarding the status of a passenger as a bona fide traveler. It emphasizes that the absence of a ticket is not conclusive evidence against the claimant and that the Railways must actively disprove the claim once the initial burden is discharged by the claimant. This ruling reinforces the beneficial nature of the Railways Act and ensures that victims of railway accidents are not denied compensation on technical grounds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Claims Tribunal. The court held that the death of Muchamy @ Muthusamy was due to an untoward incident and that he was a bona fide passenger. The court awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the appellants, emphasizing the beneficial nature of the Railways Act and the need to provide relief to victims of railway accidents.