A landmark verdict by the Supreme Court of India has provided crucial relief to accident victims and their families, firmly holding that Railways cannot escape liability for compensation simply because the deceased mistakenly boarded a train that did not halt at their destination station.

In a significant judgment that clarifies the scope of "untoward incidents" under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Supreme Court ordered the Railways to pay a compensation of Rs. 8 Lakhs, along with 9% annual interest, to the parents of a young man who tragically died in a railway accident.

The Court strongly rejected the Railways' argument that the victim's death was caused by his own "negligence" for attempting to de-board a running train after realizing his mistake.

The case, titled SHRIKUMAR GUPTA & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, stemmed from a tragic accident that occurred on May 29, 2013, resulting in the death of 23-year-old Shravan Kumar Gupta @ Betal Gupta.

The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The core undisputed facts were:

The deceased possessed a valid train ticket to travel from Satna to Maihar in Madhya Pradesh. This established him as a bona fide passenger.
On the date of the incident, he mistakenly boarded the Godan Express (Train No. 11056), which, despite passing through Maihar, did not have a scheduled stop there.
The accident occurred when the deceased fell from the train at Maihar Station.

The Union of India (Railways) built its entire legal defence on the claim of the deceased's negligence, attempting to invoke the proviso to Section 124A of the Act, which absolves Railways of liability in cases of self-inflicted injury or criminal acts.

The Railways contended that since the Godan Express did not stop at Maihar, the deceased, upon realizing his error, must have attempted to jump off the moving train at the station. This act, according to the Railways, was an act of "self-negligence" or a "self-inflicted injury," which should disqualify the claimants from receiving compensation.

The case went through a divided opinion at the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) and saw the High Court rule in favour of the Railways, forcing the claimants to re-deposit the 50% of the award amount they had initially received. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the parents then approached the Supreme Court.

A division bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria firmly overturned the High Court's ruling and restored the original compensation award. The bench delivered a powerful judgment based on two key legal and factual arguments:

1. Status of 'Bona Fide Passenger' is Not Lost by Mistake

The Court clearly addressed the argument that boarding the wrong train revoked the victim's status as a genuine or "bona fide passenger."

The Bench stated, “Merely because the deceased had boarded a wrong train, it cannot be construed that he was not a bona fide passenger so as to absolve the railway authorities from contending that deceased not being a bona fide passenger.”

This observation is crucial as it emphasizes that holding a valid ticket is the primary qualifier for being a bona fide passenger, and a simple, understandable human error does not strip a traveller of the protections provided under the Act.

2. Railways Failed to Prove Negligence

The Supreme Court heavily criticised the Railways for raising the plea of "jumping off the train" without providing a shred of evidence to back it up.

The Court questioned the plausibility of the Railways' version, asserting, “no sane person could have attempted to deboard or alight from a running train that too an express train.”

The Bench further pointed out the procedural failure of the Railways:

“The railway authorities have taken a plea in the written statement in paragraph 3 that the deceased had jumped off the train... is a plea without proof. Having raised such a plea, it was incumbent upon the railway authorities to prove the same.”

Crucially, the Court noted that even the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) Report, often the Railways’ own official document, was "silent on this aspect," completely undermining their defence. Since the Railways could not substantiate the claim of the deceased's own negligent act, the statutory liability for compensation remained squarely with the public carrier.

Finding the High Court's finding contrary to the facts rightly held by the majority opinion of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

This verdict reinforces the principle of strict liability on the part of the Railways in cases of untoward incidents involving bona fide passengers. The judgment serves as a strong reminder that mere assumptions or unsubstantiated allegations of negligence cannot be used by the Railways to circumvent their responsibility to compensate the victims of railway accidents.

The Respondent-Railway is now directed to disburse the full compensation amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the parents, along with 9% interest from the date of the original award, within three months from the date of the order.

Disclaimer: The content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for advice on specific legal issues.