REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3799 OF 2023

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 17062/2022)

Kamukayi & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Union of India ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgement dated 26.03.2021

passed by the High Court of judicature of Madras in Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2442/2019 filed by appellants.

The High Court by the impugned judgment held that

appellants had failed to establish any untoward incident or

the deceased was a bona fide passenger however upholding

the impugned judgement dated 29.06.2017 of the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claim petition filed

seeking compensation for the death of Muchamy @

Muthusamy was dismissed. Challenging both the

judgments, the claimants/appellants are before this Court.

3. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that on

27.09.2014 the deceased- Muchamy @ Muthusamy

(husband of appellant 1 and father of appellants 2 and 3)

was required to go for medical treatment to Government

Hospital, Karur. He reached Lalapettai Railway Station

along with his son (appellant 3), who purchased the railway

ticket of Karur and handed over to deceased who boarded

Train No. 56841- Trichy Erode Passenger to reach Karur.

When the train reached Mahadanapuram Railway Station,

due to heavy crowd in the compartment and jolting of the

train, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running

train between the platform and track at KM 90/200-300

and sustained grave injuries including decapitation and

amputation of right hand. The deceased died on the spot.

FIR was lodged in Railway Police Station, Karur, the

inquest report was prepared and the final report had also

been submitted which clearly reveals that death of the

2

deceased was an outcome of untoward railway incident.

The post-mortem conducted in the Government Hospital,

Karur indicates that the cause of death was due to shock

and haemorrhage because of injuries on vital organs and

decapitation of head. The claim petition was filed on

25.07.2016 before the Railway claims Tribunal, Chennai

Bench seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 4

Lakhs with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing

of application till its realisation.

4. The respondent contested the claim taking defence that

the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because his

journey ticket was not found and only white coloured torn

shirt in a mutilated condition with rose colour design lungi

and red coloured underwear was recovered from the spot.

As per the inquest report, the dead body was found with

head decapitated at the level of right shoulder. It is stated

that if deceased had fallen from running train, his body

would not have been found outside the railway track.

However, looking to the nature of injuries, as mentioned in

Post-Mortem Report, the allegation of death of the deceased

3

due to untoward incident was denied, therefore Southern

Railway is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The record reveals that the claim petition was filed with

some delay which was condoned as per order dated

01.11.2016 by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal by

its judgement dated 29.06.2017 dismissed the claim

application holding that the appellants have failed to prove

the death of deceased in an untoward incident and he was

not a bona fide passenger making the Railway liable for

grant of compensation. The Claims Tribunal was influenced

by the statement of one D. Ravishankar, Station Master

before whom the search of dead body was made in the

presence of deceased’s son and at that time, journey

ticket was not found with the body. The Claims Tribunal

has also relied upon the sketch map and post-mortem

report, while non-suiting the appellants.

6. On filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2442 of 2019

before the High Court, it was dismissed making an

observation that the findings of Claims Tribunal are not

perverse as the deceased was not found to be a bona fide

4

passenger and appellants have failed to prove the death of

deceased is an outcome of untoward incident.

7. Assailing those findings, learned counsel for the

appellants relied upon the FIR, inquest report dated

27.09.2014 and the final report dated 14.11.2014 and

contended that occurrence was an outcome of untoward

incident as defined under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways

Act, 1989 (in short, “Railways Act”). It is further urged that

as per the averments made in the claim petition and the

statement of claimant-appellant Manikandan (AW-1), it is

apparent that he had purchased the ticket of Rs 10/- and

handed it over to his father at Lalapettai Railway Station for

the journey in Train number 56841 from Lalapettai to

Karur. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgement of

Union of India v. Rina Devi

1

urged, the initial burden of

being bonafide passenger has been discharged and the onus

has been shifted on the Railway Authorities which has not

been discharged by them. Therefore, the findings of the

Claims Tribunal and the High Court are perverse. It is

further urged in the light of judgement of UOI v. Radha

1 (2019) 3 SCC 572

5

Yadav

2

because death is proved due to outcome of

untoward incident of the deceased being bona fide

passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be

awarded.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that there are two necessary ingredients which

need to be proved on strict parameters; first the deceased

being a ‘bonafide passenger’ and second being the

occurrence of an ‘untoward incident’. As per the findings

concurrently recorded by the Claims Tribunal and High

Court, those ingredients have not been found proved,

therefore the present appeal may be dismissed.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of provisions of the Railways Act, in particular

Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of Railway

Administration for death and injury to passengers due to

accidents. Section 123 (c) defines “untoward incident”. As

per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a

2 (2019) 3 SCC 410

6

train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident.

As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to

pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When

in the course of working of railway, an untoward incident

occurs then whether or not there has been any wrongful

act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway

Administration as such, would entitle a passenger who has

been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to

recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay

compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. By

the explanation of the said Section clarifying about

‘passenger’, it would include a person who has purchased a

valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on

any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of

an untoward incident.

10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has

explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is

found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue,

this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya

7

Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India

3

and

the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v.

Union of India

4

, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty

Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India

5

and also

considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs.

Union of India

6

and in para 29 concluded as thus-

“We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the

railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that

injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for

which claim for compensation could be maintained.

However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or

deceased will not negative the claim that he was a

bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the

claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit

of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the

Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts

shown or the attending circumstances. This will have

to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts

found. The legal position in this regard will stand

explained accordingly.”

11. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of

the pleadings and the material placed on record before the

Claims Tribunal, it is required to be analysed whether the

3 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96

4 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101

5 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828

6 (2019) 12 SCC 391

8

findings of the Claims Tribunal and High Court are just or

perverse.

12. As per the material placed, the FIR of the incident is

registered by the Railway Police Station, Karur on

27.9.2014 at 10 A.M. As per the averments of the FIR, it

revealed that on 27.9.2014, complainant Manikandan

(AW1) son of the deceased purchased a ticket of Erode

Passenger Train from Lalapettai to Karur at Lalapettai

Railway Station and gave it to his father Muchamy @

Muthusamy, who was going to Government Hospital,

Karur for his medical treatment. At about 9 a.m., he

received information from his uncle Ayyappan that the

deceased had fallen from the train at Mahadanapuram

Railway Station with decapitation and amputation of

right arm. The inquest report was prepared on the same

day by the Inquest Officer specifying the circumstances

under which the accident took place, the relevant thereto

is reproduced as under:

“The deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy age

50/14, s/o Mookkan, Kodikkal Street,

Lalapettai, in order to take medical treatment

9

for the wound on his leg on 27.09.2014 morning

8 ¼ hours he came to Lalapettai Railway

Station along with his son Manikandan and his

son purchased a train ticket for the deceased to

travel from Lalapettai to Karur and he received

the ticket and travelled to Trichy by Erode

Passenger Train. While the train came to

Mahadanapuram Railway Station the deceased

adrift and fallen down from the train

compartment and entangled with train result of

head decapitated, hand amputated and died at

the spot.”

13. The post-mortem was conducted by the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital,

Karur on the same day i.e. 27.9.2014 and the Doctor

opined regarding cause of death as under:

“The deceased would have appearance to have

died of shock and haemorrhage and injury to

vital organs and decapitation of head about 4

to 8 hours prior to autopsy.”

14. The final report was prepared and findings are as

under:

“In this case I enquired the circumstantial

witnesses. They deposed same thing what

they deposed before the Sub-Inspector,

hence I am not recording any statement

separately. As per the investigation made

10

with occurrence place witness, inquest

panchayatar witness, and as per enquiry

with the doctor who done the post-mortem

the deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy,

50/14, s/o Mookkan, Kodikkal Street,

Lalapettai, Krishnarayapuram-TK, Karur-Dt

used to go to Karur GH for the medical

treatment of the wound on his leg on the

date of occurrence came to station with his

son by bicycle and his son purchased the

ticket and sent him in the train Trichy to

Karur and went to his job. The deceased

Muchamy@Muthusamy travelling in the train

came to Mahadanapuram railway station he

fell down from the train, head was

decapitated, right hand amputated and

excessive of blood loss he died at spot.

Hence, I have come to the conclusion that

the death of the deceased is an “accidental

death” and submitting the final report.

The case ends.”

15. The Southern Railway submitted the investigation

report dated 7.6.2017 under Rule 7(2) of the Railway

Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward

Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short “Rules, 2003). The said

report refers the intimation to the Station Master,

Mahadanapuram, wherein the occurrence of untoward

incident has not been denied except to say that the

passenger was travelling without a ticket. In the said

11

report, final conclusion of the enquiry was reported as

under:

“Enquiry reveals that on 27.9.2014, the

deceased was on his way to Government

Hospital, Karur for medical treatment and

travelled in T.No. 56841 Pass (Ex. TPJ-

ED) from Lalapettai to Karur. When the

said train was leaving after its scheduled

stoppage, the deceased fell down and died

at the spot.”

16. The said finding of the investigation was recorded

after considering the statement of D. Ravisankar, Station

Master, Tanjore, who was on duty at Mahadanapuram

Railway Station on 27.9.2014. As per his statement, it is

apparent that on 27.09.2014, Train No. 56841 arrived at

Mahadanapuram at 08:43 hrs and left at 08:44 hrs.

While moving from platform it was stopped due to ACP in

Coach No. 01446. When he attended the said coach, he

noticed one male person aged about 50 years was run over

and died on the track. Therefore, even as per the

statement of D. Ravisankar, it is clear that on account of

chain pulling in Coach No. 01446, he noticed the dead

body of the deceased was found lying on the railway track.

Looking to the said fact findings of the investigation

12

report, which is after considering the inquest report and

final report of the Railway Police Station Inspector, Trichy,

it is submitted in this regard that untoward incident

cannot be doubted in absence of any other material.

17. The said enquiry report was accepted by DRM on

7.6.2017. 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

Manikandan-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.

18. Now, reverting to the issue whether the deceased was

a bona fide passenger? In this regard, the ocular

statement of AW1- Manikandan, son of the deceased, who

procured a valid train ticket for travel from Lalapettai to

Karur and handed it over to the deceased is on record. As

13

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

from Lalapettai to Karur was purchased for a sum of Rs.

10/- and sent him off at Station to go to Karur. The

deceased fell down at Mahadanapuram Railway Station.

The said averment of the claim petition and the statement

of D. Ravisankar, 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 our view, 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,

14

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.

19. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that as per law laid down by this Court in Rina

Devi (supra), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that

deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy died in an untoward

incident which took place on 27.9.2014 while travelling in

a passenger Train No. 5684 and he was a bona fide

passenger. The findings adversely recorded by the Claims

Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are perverse,

therefore set-aside. In our view, as per the provisions

contained in Section 124A of Railways Act and Railway

Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,

1990, the appellants are entitled to claim compensation.

20. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled

to seek compensation, but during hearing, it is brought to

our notice that after the date of accident and filing the

claim petition on 25.7.2016, the Compensation Rules,

1990 were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017. Therefore, the

15

amount of compensation has to be arrived at while taking

into account the amended Rules. The said issue was

considered by this Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra),

wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19, this Court has observed

as thus:

“18. The learned Amicus has referred to judgments of this

Court in Raman Iron Foundry and Kesoram Industries to

submit that quantum of compensation applicable is to be as

on the award of the Tribunal as the amount due is only on

that day and not earlier. In  Kesoram Industries, the

question was when for purposes of calculating “net wealth”

under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provision for payment of

tax could be treated as “debt owed” within the meaning of

Section 2(m) of the said Act. This Court held that “debt” was

obligation to pay. The sum payable on a contingency,

however, does not become “debt” until the said contingency

happens. The liability to pay tax arises on such tax being

quantified. But when the rate of tax is ascertainable, the

amount can be treated as debt for the year for which the tax

is due for purposes of valuation during the accounting year

in question. There is no conflict in the ratio of this judgment

with the principle propounded in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi 

that in the present context right to compensation arises on

the date of the accident. In Raman Iron Foundry, the

question was whether a claim for unliquidated damages

does not give rise to “a debt” till the liability is determined.

It was held that no debt arises from a claim for unliquidated

damages until the liability is adjudicated. Even from this

judgment it is not possible to hold that the liability for

compensation, in the present context, arises only on

determination thereof and not on the date of accident. Since

it has been held that interest is required to be paid, the

premise on which Rathi Menon  is based has changed. We

16

are of the view that law in the present context should be

taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the

accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be

the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest

from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as

may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this

context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim

cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once concept

of interest has been introduced, principles of the Workmen

Compensation Act can certainly be applied and judgment of

the four-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo  will fully

apply. Wherever it is found that the revised amount of

applicable compensation as on the date of award of the

Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of

compensation as on the date of accident with interest,

higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the

principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is

certainly a piece of beneficent legislation. 19. Accordingly,

we conclude that compensation will be payable as

applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may

be considered reasonable from time to time on the same

pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so

calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the

date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be

entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not

affect the awards which have already become final and

where limitation for challenging such awards has expired,

this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of

delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon and Kalandi Charan

Sahoo stands explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench

judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo  holds the field on the

subject and squarely applies to the present situation.

Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has

to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the

mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as

provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than

unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two

amounts has to be given.”

17

21.The said judgment was further explained by this

Court in the case of Radha Yadav (supra), relevant para

11 is reproduced as thus:

“11. The issue raised in the matter does not really

require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of

this Court in Rina Devi is very clear. What this Court

has laid down is that the amount of compensation

payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of

interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so

calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on

the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to

higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability

had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the

basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in

existence before the amendment and on such basic

figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated.

If there be any difference between the amount so

calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule

as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures

would be the measure of compensation. For instance,

in case of a death in an accident which occurred before

amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-.

If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final

figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was

brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would

be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of

original compensation with rate of interest were to

exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation

would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-.

The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to

the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter

is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further

clarification or elaboration.”

22. The said view has been reaffirmed by this Court in

the case of Union of India vs. Dilip and others

7

.

7 2019 SCC Online SC 2119

18

23. Accordingly and as per above discussion we allow this

appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated

26.03.2021 passed by the High Court and also the Claims

Tribunal dated 29.06.2017. Consequently, claim

application is allowed. The appellants are held entitled for

compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with

interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim

application till its realisation. It is made clear that after

applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than

Rs. 8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.

8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by

the respondent within a period of eight weeks. No order as

to costs.

………….……………….J.

(SURYA KANT)

..…...……………………J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

NEW DELHI;

16.05.2023.

19