Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Railway Accidents: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 16 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 541

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

Can a railway accident victim’s family receive compensation even if the victim’s ticket is not found? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the rules for compensation in railway accident cases. This judgment emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence and shifts the burden of proof in favor of the victim’s family. The bench comprised Justices Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, with the opinion authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

On September 27, 2014, Muchamy @ Muthusamy was traveling by train from Lalapettai to Karur for medical treatment. His son, Manikandan, purchased a train ticket and gave it to him. While the train was passing through Mahadanapuram Railway Station, Muchamy fell from the train, sustaining fatal injuries, including decapitation and amputation of his right hand, leading to his immediate death. An FIR was lodged at the Railway Police Station, Karur, and a post-mortem was conducted at the Government Hospital, Karur. The cause of death was determined to be shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs and decapitation. The family filed a claim petition on July 25, 2016, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, seeking compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs with 12% interest.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, stating that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no ticket was found on his body and that the death was not due to an untoward incident. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the findings were not perverse. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following provisions of the Railways Act, 1989:

• Section 123(c) defines “untoward incident” which includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train.
  
  “untoward incident” means—(1) (a) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or (b) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (c) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
• Section 124A states that the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for death or injury to a passenger due to an untoward incident.
  
  “When in the course of working a railway, an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident.”
  
  The explanation of the said Section clarifies that a ‘passenger’ includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the death was an outcome of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
• They contended that the son of the deceased, Manikandan (AW-1), had purchased a ticket for Rs. 10 and handed it over to his father at Lalapettai Railway Station for the journey to Karur.
• They relied on the judgment of Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572], arguing that the initial burden of proving the deceased was a bonafide passenger had been discharged, shifting the onus to the Railway Authorities.
• They further relied on UOI v. Radha Yadav [(2019) 3 SCC 410], arguing that since the death was due to an untoward incident, adequate compensation should be awarded.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that two necessary ingredients must be strictly proved: first, that the deceased was a ‘bonafide passenger’ and second, that the death was the result of an ‘untoward incident’.
• They submitted that both the Claims Tribunal and the High Court had concurrently found that these ingredients were not proven.

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 ‘bonafide passenger’ entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. What is the applicable compensation amount considering the amendment to the Compensation Rules, 1990?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572]* to determine the burden of proof in railway accident cases, stating that the initial burden was on the claimant, which was discharged by the appellants, shifting the onus to the Railways.
• The court relied on UOI v. Radha Yadav [(2019) 3 SCC 410]* to determine the method of calculating compensation, emphasizing that the higher of the compensation amount as on the date of the accident with interest or the amount prescribed on the date of the award should be given.
• The court also relied on Union of India vs. Dilip and others [2019 SCC Online SC 2119]* to reaffirm the principles laid down in Rina Devi and Radha Yadav.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized that the FIR, inquest report, final report, and the investigation report, all supported the claim that the deceased fell from the train.
• Testimony of Son: The testimony of the deceased’s son, Manikandan (AW-1), stating that he purchased the ticket and gave it to his father, was considered crucial.
• Shifting Burden of Proof: The Court reiterated the principle from Rina Devi that once the initial burden of proving bonafide passenger status is discharged, the onus shifts to the Railway Administration to disprove it, which they failed to do.
• Beneficial Legislation: The Court highlighted that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation, and its provisions should be interpreted to favor the victims of railway accidents.
• Compensation Calculation: The Court applied the principle from Radha Yadav, stating that the higher of the compensation amount as on the date of the accident with interest or the amount prescribed on the date of the award should be given.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the ticket was not found on the deceased’s body but rejected it, emphasizing the circumstantial evidence and the son’s testimony. The Court also considered the argument that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger but rejected it, stating that the initial burden was discharged by the appellants. The final decision was reached by applying the principles of beneficial legislation and ensuring that the victims of railway accidents receive fair compensation.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “The said enquiry report was accepted by DRM on 7.6.2017. On perusal of the allegations of the FIR, inquest report, final report and the investigation report prepared under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003, the allegation regarding an untoward incident, as pleaded in the claim petition, is fully established and supported by the testimony of Manikandan-AW1, son of the deceased.”
• “Considering the material brought on record, in our view, the initial burden that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprove the said fact.”
• “In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as per law laid down by this Court in Rina Devi (supra), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy died in an untoward incident which took place on 27.9.2014 while travelling in a passenger Train No. 5684 and he was a bona fide passenger.”

Key Takeaways

• The absence of a ticket on a deceased’s body does not automatically disqualify a claim for compensation.
• The initial burden of proving bonafide passenger status can be discharged through circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.
• The burden of proof then shifts to the Railway Administration to disprove the claim.
• Compensation should be calculated based on the rules applicable on the date of the accident, with interest, and if this amount is less than the amount prescribed on the date of the award, the higher amount should be awarded.
• This judgment reinforces the beneficial nature of the Railways Act and its focus on providing relief to victims of railway accidents.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the appellants within eight weeks, including interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim application.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the initial burden of proving bonafide passenger status can be discharged through circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, and the absence of a ticket on a deceased’s body does not automatically disqualify a claim for compensation. This judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Union of India v. Rina Devi and UOI v. Radha Yadav, and provides further clarity on the calculation of compensation in railway accident cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this decision reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamukayi vs. Union of India clarifies the burden of proof and compensation rules in railway accident cases. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence and witness testimony can be sufficient to establish that a deceased was a bonafide passenger. The judgment also reiterated that the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for death or injury due to an untoward incident, and the higher of the compensation amount as on the date of the accident with interest or the amount prescribed on the date of the award should be given. This decision provides significant relief to the families of railway accident victims.