Holding

The claimant’s affidavit and the Investigating Officer’s report establish the deceased as a bona‑fide passenger, shifting the burden to the Railways which failed to rebut, thereby entitling the claimant to compensation.

Summary

The appellant, Doli Rani Saha, claimed compensation for the death of her brother who allegedly fell from a moving train in 2003. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court dismissed the claim, holding that there was insufficient proof the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger, particularly noting the absence of a ticket and doubts about the time of death. On appeal, the Supreme Court applied the principle from Union of India v. Rina Devi that the claimant must first discharge the burden by filing an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways, and that lack of a ticket does not defeat the claim. The Court found the appellant’s affidavit and the Investigating Officer’s report sufficient to establish the deceased as a bona‑fide passenger, and held that the Railways failed to rebut this presumption. It further held that a half‑day margin of error in post‑mortem timing is acceptable where other evidence corroborates the claim. Consequently, the Court awarded compensation of Rs 8,00,000 with interest, directing payment by the respondent.

Issues considered

Whether the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger of the train at the time of the incident.
Who bears the burden of proof when the body is found on railway premises.
Whether the absence of a ticket negates a claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act.
How to determine the applicable compensation amount and interest when the statutory amount has been amended.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Bona fide passenger of the trainCompensationRailway accidentBurden of proofAbsence of a ticketPresumptionReport of the Investigating OfficerPost-mortem reportAntemortem injuriesBlunt force impactMargin of errorNotification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated 22 December 2016

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 391 : 2024 INSC 603

Doli Rani Saha
v.
Union of India
(Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024)
09 August 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the victim was a bona fide passenger of
the train in question on the date of incident, and was entitled to
compensation.

Headnotes†
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – s. 16 – Railways Act,
1989 – s. 124A – Railway accident – Claim of compensation –
Victim, if a bona fide passenger – Burden of proof – Discharge
of – Victim travelling on the train and his death caused by a
fall during course of his travel – Compensation claim by the
victim’s sister, dismissed by the courts below – Correctness:
Held: In cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway
premises, the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could
be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts – Once
the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways –
Mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger – On facts, the victim’s
sister duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the
report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent,
which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and
that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his
travel – Burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which was
not discharged – Thus, the presumption that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger on the train was not rebutted – Report of the
Investigating Officer indicated the details mentioned in the post-
mortem report wherein the conclusions as to the time of death are
approximations – Estimation as to the time of death in the post-
mortem report differs from the time at which the IO stated that the
deceased fell off the train by about half a day – Margin of error of
about half a day in cases of compensation is not disproportionate,
392 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

where the evidence is otherwise corroborated by the material on
record, which on facts, indicate that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger on the train and he sustained grave injuries leading
to his death, due to his fall from the train – Thus, compensation
due to the victim’s sister – In case the amount so calculated is
less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the grant of
compensation, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the
two amounts – In 2003, the compensation payable for the death of
a passenger was Rs 4,00,000 as provided under Schedule I of the
Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990 – Compensation
payable for the death of a passenger as on date is Rs 8,00,000
which was enhanced by a notification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated
22 December 2016 – Victim’s sister entitled to compensation
quantified at Rs 8,00,000 to be paid by the respondent to the
victim’s sister. [Paras 13-17, 19-21]

Case Law Cited

Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018] 4 SCR 417 : (2019) 3 SCC 572;
Union of India v. Radha Yadav [2019] 1 SCR 741 : (2019) 3
SCC 410; Kamukayi and others v. Union of India and Others
[2023] 6 SCR 399 : (2023) SCC Online SC 642 – referred to.

List of Acts

Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987; Railways Act 1989; Railway
Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990; Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules 1997.

List of Keywords
Bona fide passenger of the train; Compensation; Railway accident;
Burden of proof; Absence of a ticket; Presumption; Report of the
Investigating Officer; Post-mortem report; Antemortem injuries; Blunt
force impact; Margin of error; Notification bearing GSR 1165(E)
dated 22 December 2016.

Case Arising From

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2014 of the Gauhati High
Court in RP No.41 of 2014
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 393

Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India

Appearances for Parties
Abhinav Hansaria, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Ishaan Swarana Sharma, Sachin Sharma,
Gautam Bhardwaj, Shantu Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order
Table of Contents*

A. Background and submissions.......................................... 2
B. Decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High
Court ................................................................................. 4
C. The errors in the judgments of the Railway Claims
Tribunal and the High Court ......................................... 6
D. Compensation and interest ........................................... 9

A. Background and submissions
1. The case of the appellant is that her brother, Swapan Kumar Saha,
suffered a fatal fall from a moving train, (No 5658; Kanchanjanga
Express) at KM 373/9, Dolma Gate on 5 September 2003, resulting
in his death. The body of the deceased was recovered three days
after the incident, on 8 September 2003.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act 1987 before the Guwahati Bench of the Railway
Claims Tribunal1 seeking compensation of Rs 4,00,000 arising from
the death of her brother. By its judgment dated 17 March 2009, the
Tribunal dismissed the claim, concluding that the deceased was not
travelling on the train. The review petition against this judgment was
dismissed on 29 September 2010.
3. The decision of the Tribunal was assailed in first appeal before the
Gauhati High Court. The High Court dismissed the first appeal by its

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1 “Tribunal”
394 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

judgment dated 7 January 2014 in MFA No 288 of 2010. A review
petition against this judgment (bearing Review Petition No 41 of
2014) was also dismissed on 13 November 2014. The appeal arises
from this judgment of the High Court.
4. We have heard Mr Abhinav Hansaria, counsel, in support of the
appeal and Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, with
Mr Ishaan Swarana Sharma, counsel, for the respondent.
5. The submission of the appellant is that in concluding that the
deceased was not travelling in the train on 5 September 2023,
both the High Court and the Tribunal have overlooked the findings
contained in the final report dated 6 November 2003 submitted by
the Investigating Officer2 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rangiya.
According to the submission, the above report also includes an
extract from the post-mortem report which indicated that the
cause of death was due to head injuries resulting from a “blunt
force impact”. The estimated time of death was determined to be
between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before the conduct of
the post-mortem.
6. In support of the claim that compensation ought to be awarded to
the appellant, Mr Hansaria submitted that:
a. It is not necessary to produce a valid ticket to claim compensation
under Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989,3 in view of the
decision in Union of India v Rina Devi;4
b. The law laid down by this Court in successive decisions has
clarified the test by which the amount of compensation under the
Railways Act must be computed, including the entitlement of the
claimant in case of an increase in the permissible amount; and
c. The appellant should be awarded interest as admissible in law.
7. In response, the respondent argued that the appellant had not
provided a reason for the delay in the discovery of the body of the
deceased. It argued that other employees of the Railways were
bound to have chanced upon the body in the days after the alleged

2 “IO”
3 “Railways Act”
4 [2018] 4 SCR 417 : (2019) 3 SCC 572
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 395

Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India

date of death. It supported the judgments of the Tribunal and the
High Court.
8. Written submissions have been submitted on behalf of the appellant
as well as the respondent.
B. Decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court
9. Before turning to the issue at hand, it is necessary to briefly advert
to the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Tribunal
framed the following issues for consideration:
a. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train
in question on the date of incident;
b. Whether the incident as alleged in the claim application took
place and was covered within the definition of an untoward
incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act; and
c. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation, and what
the relief should be, if any.
10. The appellant (AW-1) deposed in support of the claim, together
with her cousin, Deepak Saha (AW-2). Both witnesses were cross
examined. The railways did not produce either oral or documentary
evidence. After considering the material on record and hearing the
parties, the Tribunal found as follows:
a. No ticket was found with the deceased, whose body was found
on 8 September 2003;
b. Neither AW-1 nor AW-2 were eye witnesses to the death;
c. There was nothing else on record to show that the deceased
boarded the train; and
d. The appellant was required to produce the best evidence but
did not do so. The report of the IO was not sufficient to rebut
the presumption under Section 191 of the Railways Act.
The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to prove that
the deceased died as a consequence of falling off the train. It found
that compensation was therefore not payable to the appellant. It later
dismissed the application for review of its judgment on the ground that
no new facts were placed on record which would warrant a review.
The Tribunal also observed that the secret witnesses examined by
the IO were not examined.
396 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

11. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the decision
of the Tribunal. By its judgment dated 7 January 2014, the High
Court held that:
a. From the material available on record, it appeared that the
body of the deceased was found lying near the railway track.
However, nothing on record indicated that the deceased was
travelling as a passenger on the train;
b. The post-mortem report indicated that the death took place
between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before the conduct
of the post-mortem, which was on 9 September 2003 at 1:30
pm. From this, it cannot conclusively be held that the deceased
died on 5 September 2003; and
c. The report filed by the IO is not supported by substantive
material. Since he had no personal knowledge regarding the
cause of death, his report cannot be accepted as evidence of
the fact that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on
the train in question.
The Court therefore concluded that the appellant failed to establish
that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on 5 September
2023 on the train in question.
12. The High Court later dismissed the review petition preferred by the
appellant. It held that:
a. The material facts as well as the questions of law had been
considered in the judgment under review; and
b. The report of the IO was based on a “secret enquiry” conducted
by him. The IO did not disclose the material facts which led him
to conclude that the deceased was travelling in the train. Further,
he was not examined. The opinion of the IO, as recorded in
his report, was therefore not substantiated.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that the appellant had not made
out a case that there was an error apparent on the face of the record.
C. The errors in the judgments of the Railway Claims Tribunal
and the High Court
13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements
leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 397

Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India

is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In
Rina Devi (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the
question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases
where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises.
This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant,
which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant
facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to
the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of
a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court
is reproduced below:
“29. 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating
the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation
conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased
was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall
during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to
the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the
presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the
train in question was not rebutted.
15. Further, the report of the IO indicates the details mentioned in the
post-mortem report. It states that the cause of death was due to an
injury sustained on the head and that all injuries were antemortem
and caused by “blunt force impact”. It also states that forty-eight to
seventy-two hours had passed since the time of death.
398 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16. The High Court noticed the time of death estimated by the post-
mortem report. From this, it concluded that it was not possible to
hold that the deceased died on 5 September 2003 because the
post-mortem examination was conducted on 9 September 2003 at
about 1:30 pm. It appears that the High Court was of the opinion
that the deceased died later than 5 September 2003 because the
post-mortem report indicated that forty-eight to seventy-two hours
had passed since the time of death. However, the High Court did
not notice that the IO indicated that the deceased fell off the train
at approximately 11:15 pm on 5 September 2003.
17. Seventy-two hours prior to the conduct of the post-mortem would be
about 1:30 pm on 6 December 2003. This would be about thirteen
to fourteen hours after the deceased fell off the train. Conclusions
in post-mortem reports as to the time of death are approximations.
This is also indicated by the fact that they usually provide a window
of time in which the deceased may have died. A margin of error of
about half a day in cases where compensation is at issue is not
disproportionate, where the evidence is otherwise corroborated by
the material on record. In this case, the estimation as to the time of
death in the post-mortem report differs from the time at which the
IO stated that the deceased fell off the train by about half a day.
The report of the IO otherwise corroborated that the deceased fell
from the train. Further, the post-mortem report also stated that the
deceased sustained antemortem injuries due to blunt force. Hence,
from the material on record, it can be concluded that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger on the train in question and that he
sustained grave injuries leading to his death, due to his fall from the
train. Compensation is therefore due to the appellant.
D. Compensation and interest
18. The decision in Rina Devi (supra) holds as follows on the aspect
of compensation:
“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
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 399

Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India

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
[Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, para
30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo
[Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways,
(2019) 12 SCC 387 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands
explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench judgment
in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v.
Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52]
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.”
The decision in Rina Devi (supra) has subsequently been followed
in Union of India v. Radha Yadav5 and in Kamukayi and others
v. Union of India and Others.6
19. In Rina Devi (supra), this Court held that the claimant would be
entitled to interest from the date of the accident and, in case the
amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the
date of the grant of compensation, the claimant would be entitled
to the higher of the two amounts. The principle which has been
laid down in Rina Devi (supra) serves a salutary purpose. This
was noticed in the decision in Radha Yadav (supra) where it was
observed that “the idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment,
to the extent possible”.
20. In 2003, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger was
Rs 4,00,000, as provided under Schedule I of the Railway Accidents
(Compensation) Rules 1990, as amended by the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules 1997.
The compensation payable for the death of a passenger as on date

5 [2019] 1 SCR 741 : (2019) 3 SCC 410
6 [2023] 6 SCR 399 : 2023 SCC Online SC 642
400 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

is Rs 8,00,000, which was enhanced by a notification bearing GSR
1165(E) dated 22 December 2016.
21. Following the judgment in Rina Devi (supra), from which we see no
reason to depart, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation
quantified at Rs 8,00,000. The compensation shall be paid by the
respondent to the appellant by 30 September 2024, failing which
the amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of
six per cent per annum from the date of the order of this Court until
payment.
22. The District Legal Services Authority, Kokrajhar shall provide all
details, including the address of the appellant, so as to facilitate
payment by the respondent in terms of the above directions. If the
appellant has a bank account, including a Jan Dhan account, details
shall be provided by the DLSA to the respondent so that the transfer
of funds is made seamlessly to the appellant.
23. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain