KAMUKAYI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 16-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
KAMUKAYI & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023)
MAY 16, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Railways Act, 1989 – ss. 123(c) and 124 – Railway Passengers
(Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 – r. 7
– Claim for compensation – Victim-deceased fell down from the
running train between platform and track and sustained grave
injuries including decapitation and amputation of right hand –
Deceased died on the spot – FIR was registered – Inquest report
and final report submitted clearly revealed that death was an outcome
of untoward railway incident – Claim petition was filed before the
Railways claims Tribunal – Claims Tribunal held that appellants
had failed to prove the death of deceased in an untoward incident
and he was not the bonafide passenger making the Railway liable
for grant of compensation – High Court upheld the decision of the
Tribunal – On appeal, held: 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 AW1, son of the
deceased – Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by the
Claims Tribunal and the High Court are without considering the
documents of the investigation and the final report – As far as issue
whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger is concerned, the
ocular statement of AW1 that he had procured valid train ticket and
given to deceased, the averments made in the claim petition was
testified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiterated that
ticket for deceased was purchased and sent him off at Station – The
said averment finds support from inquest report by inquest officer,
final report by investigation officer – Considering the material
brought on record, 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 – Railways had
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 399
399
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
not discharged the burden – Therefore, the Railway Administration
liable to pay compensation prescribed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 AW1, son of the deceased.
Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by the Claims
Tribunal and the High Court are without considering the
documents of the investigation and the final report accepted by
the DRM on 7.6.2017 and therefore such findings are perverse
and set-aside. [Para 17][407-G-H; 408-A]
2. Now, reverting to the issue whether the deceased was a
bona fide passenger? In this regard, the ocular statement of AW1,
son of the deceased, who procured a valid train ticket for travel
and handed it over to the deceased is on record. As per the
statement of AW1, the averments made in the claim petition have
been testified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiterated
that ticket for deceased was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10/- and
sent him off at Station. The deceased fell down at Railway Station.
The said averment of the claim petition and the statement of
Station Master finds support from inquest report prepared by
the Inquest Officer on the date of incidence i.e. 27.9.2014 and
the final report prepared by the Investigation Officer, Railway
Police Station Trichy on 14.11.2014. The said reports have been
referred to in the investigation report dated 7.6.2017. Considering
the material brought on record, in view of this Court, 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. Nothing has been placed before Claims
Tribunal or brought on record during the course of hearing that
the Railway Administration has discharged the burden of not
having the valid railway ticket with the deceased passenger,
except to say that during recovery ticket was not found. In absence
of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay
compensation as prescribed. [Para 18][408-B-F]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.