Does mere absence of a ticket with the victim negate a bona fide passenger claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Paragraph 9In Rina Devi (supra), this Court has held that mere absence of a ticket with the victim would not negate the claim that the victim was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which the burden would shift on the Railways. In paragraph 17.4 of the said decision, it has been held as under:

Paragraph 10Another material factor that is to be borne in mind is that the untoward incident took place on 27.09.2017, which left the victim with grievous injuries. He was thereafter hospitalised for a period of more than a month. He, however, succumbed to his injuries on 31.10.2017. In normal course, when the victim was undergoing medical treatment, it is quite unlikely that the railway ticket would have been preserved by the claimants. In any event, the Railways failed to discharge the burden that had shifted on them in view of the claimant’s statement on oath. Taking an overall view of the matter, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of the ticket could not be held against the claimants. The claimants had specifically pleaded that the victim’s ticket, handkerchief, wristwatch, comb and cash of ₹800/- to ₹900/- were lost. The victim’s father having deposed on oath that his son had purchased the ticket resulted in the initial burden being discharged by the claimants and it was upto the Railways to rebut the same. The witnesses examined by the Railways failed to check the pockets of the victim. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the victim was a bona fide passenger. The High Court gave undue importance to the absence of the railway ticket without taking into consideration the statement made on oath by the victim’s father and the fact that the victim had been hospitalised for a period of more than one month. On preponderance of probabilities, it can be concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating the claim for compensation. The principle of ‘strict liability’ flowing from Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 as held in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others[^8] is clearly attracted.