LexDOLI RANI SAHA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 391 : 2024 INSC 603 Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024) 09 August 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the victim was a bona fide passenger of the train in question on the date of incident, and was entitled to compensation. Headnotes† Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – s. 16 – Railways Act, 1989 – s. 124A – Railway accident – Claim of compensation – Victim, if a bona fide passenger – Burden of proof – Discharge of – Victim travelling on the train and his death caused by a fall during course of his travel – Compensation claim by the victim’s sister, dismissed by the courts below – Correctness: Held: In cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises, the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts – Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways – Mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger – On facts, the victim’s sister duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel – Burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which was not discharged – Thus, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train was not rebutted – Report of the Investigating Officer indicated the details mentioned in the post- mortem report wherein the conclusions as to the time of death are approximations – Estimation as to the time of death in the post- mortem report differs from the time at which the IO stated that the deceased fell off the train by about half a day – Margin of error of about half a day in cases of compensation is not disproportionate, 392 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports where the evidence is otherwise corroborated by the material on record, which on facts, indicate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train and he sustained grave injuries leading to his death, due to his fall from the train – Thus, compensation due to the victim’s sister – In case the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the grant of compensation, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts – In 2003, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger was Rs 4,00,000 as provided under Schedule I of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990 – Compensation payable for the death of a passenger as on date is Rs 8,00,000 which was enhanced by a notification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated 22 December 2016 – Victim’s sister entitled to compensation quantified at Rs 8,00,000 to be paid by the respondent to the victim’s sister. [Paras 13-17, 19-21] Case Law Cited Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018] 4 SCR 417 : (2019) 3 SCC 572; Union of India v. Radha Yadav [2019] 1 SCR 741 : (2019) 3 SCC 410; Kamukayi and others v. Union of India and Others [2023] 6 SCR 399 : (2023) SCC Online SC 642 – referred to. List of Acts Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987; Railways Act 1989; Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990; Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules 1997. List of Keywords Bona fide passenger of the train; Compensation; Railway accident; Burden of proof; Absence of a ticket; Presumption; Report of the Investigating Officer; Post-mortem report; Antemortem injuries; Blunt force impact; Margin of error; Notification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated 22 December 2016. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2014 of the Gauhati High Court in RP No.41 of 2014 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 393 Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India Appearances for Parties Abhinav Hansaria, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Advs. for the Appellant. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Ishaan Swarana Sharma, Sachin Sharma, Gautam Bhardwaj, Shantu Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Table of Contents* A. Background and submissions.......................................... 2 B. Decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court ................................................................................. 4 C. The err
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.