Railway Tribunal Orders Compensation for Passenger’s Accidental Death | Representative Image
Mumbai: The Railway Claims Tribunal has directed the Central Railway to pay compensation to the family of a deceased man, holding that his death was the result of an “untoward incident” and not a suicide, as claimed by the authorities.
Citing the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi, which shed light on the crucial aspect of the “burden of proof when a ticket is not recovered in an untoward incident”, the tribunal maintained that while the burden lies initially on the claimants, there is a heavier burden on the respondent (Central Railway) to rebut the presumption. It thus rejected the railway’s claim that the deceased was travelling without a ticket and was therefore not a bona fide passenger.
Following the Supreme Court’s precedent, the tribunal referred to the relevant portion of the judgment, which stated that the mere absence of a ticket on an injured or deceased person does not negate the claim that the person was a bona fide passenger. “The initial burden will be on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and the burden will then shift to the Railways. The issue can be decided based on the facts presented and the attending circumstances. This will have to be assessed case by case, based on the facts found. The legal position in this regard is accordingly explained,” the tribunal noted.
The deceased, Rajendra Vasantrao Dusane, 45, a resident of Niphad in Nashik district, died on November 2, 2015, after allegedly falling from a running train—the Tapowan Express—while travelling from Nasik Road to Niphad. According to his family, he had boarded the train after visiting his ailing mother.
His wife Maya Rajendra Dusane, son Akash Dusane, and mother Sindhu Vasant Dusane filed a claim for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, stating that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.
The Central Railway, however, denied liability, alleging that Rajendra Dusane had committed suicide. They cited the post-mortem report and the absence of scratches or abrasions on the body as indicative of a self-inflicted death.
The Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report also suggested that Dusane may have deliberately lain on the tracks. Additionally, the non-availability of the ticket on his person was presented as evidence of suicide.
Despite this, the tribunal—presided over by Vice Chairman (Judicial) Shri K.K. Sonawane—rejected the railway’s claims, stating that there was no credible or conclusive evidence to prove that Dusane had committed suicide. It also noted that no eyewitnesses, train crew, or officials had reported any such attempt by the deceased.
“The allegations made by the respondent regarding the victim’s suicide are based on figments of imagination and cannot take the place of proof,” the order stated, adding that the respondent failed to discharge its burden of disproving the claimants’ version.
The tribunal accepted the testimony of the deceased’s brother, Mahendra Dusane, who confirmed that he had accompanied Rajendra to the station and had witnessed him purchasing a ticket to Niphad. Although the ticket was lost in the incident, the tribunal ruled that Rajendra Dusane was a bona fide passenger.
Under the strict liability clause of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, compensation is payable irrespective of fault unless the death occurs due to exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, or intoxication—all of which the tribunal held were not proven in this case. The tribunal thus allowed the compensation claim and directed the Central Railway to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.
