In 2003, the Supreme Court directed the Indian Railways to pay Rs 8 lakh compensation to a woman whose brother died after falling from a running Kanchanjugha Express train in 2003. of compensation.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra allowed Doli Rani Saha's appeal against the death of her brother Swapan Kumar Saha on September 8, 2003, as the Railways failed to rebut the presumption that he was a genuine of passengers.
The judge pointed out that the conclusion about the time of death in the autopsy report was an approximation, which also showed that the autopsy report usually provides a window of time when the deceased may have died.
“In cases involving compensation, a margin of error of about half a day is not excessive if the evidence is corroborated by record material,” the court said.
The appellant challenged the validity of the order of the Gauhati High Court and the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing her plea seeking compensation of Rs.
She argued that the High Court and the Tribunal concluded that the deceased did not travel on the train on September 5, 2003, ignoring the findings contained in the investigators' final report submitted to the Divisional Magistrate on November 6, 2003. Gia.
She said the report also included excerpts from the autopsy, which showed the cause of death was “blunt force impact” to the head. The estimated time of death was determined to be between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before the autopsy.
The railway company stated that the appellant did not provide a reason for the delay in the discovery of the body of the deceased. It argued that other railroad employees must have stumbled upon the body within days of the alleged date of death.
The bench, after reviewing the decisions of the High Courts and Tribunals, noted that the Supreme Court in Union of India v Rina Devi (2019) considered the question of which party bears the burden of proof in the event of non-performance of duties by an Indian principal body. The railway yard was discovered.
The court held that the initial burden would be borne by the plaintiff and could be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts. Once the claimant does so, the burden shifts to the railways.
The judge said it was noteworthy that the court also held that the mere absence of a ticket did not negate the claim that the deceased was a genuine passenger.
“In the present case, the appellant has duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and referring to the defendant's post-investigation report which showed that the deceased was traveling on a train and that he fell to his death on the train during his travels. The burden of proof then follows transferred to the railway company but the railway company failed to discharge its responsibility and therefore the presumption that the deceased was a genuine passenger on the train in question was not rebutted,” the judge said.
The SC also pointed out that the High Court failed to take note of the statement of the Investigating Officer (IO) that the deceased fell from the train at around 11.15 pm on September 5, 2003.
“The IO report confirmed the fact that the deceased fell from the train. In addition, the autopsy report also stated that the deceased suffered blunt force injuries before his death. Therefore, from the recorded information, the deceased was a real passenger on the train and fell from the train. The appellant was seriously injured and died.
The court said that as per the provisions of Schedule I to the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as amended by the Railway Accidents and Accidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules), the compensation payable in case of death of a passenger in 2003 was Rs 4,00,000 in 1997 .
However, as of now, the compensation amount in case of death of a passenger is Rs 8 lakh and the GSR 1165(E) notification issued on December 22, 2016 increased the compensation amount.
The court ultimately ruled that the defendant should pay compensation to the appellant before September 30, 2024. Otherwise, the amount paid will accrue interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order until the payment period.
