Calcutta HC Reverses Railway Tribunal, Awards Rs 8 Lakh Where Police Seizure List Proved Ticket Recovery
The Calcutta High Court set aside a Railway Claims Tribunal dismissal, holding that a police seizure list recording recovery of a journey ticket from a deceased passenger's body was sufficient to establish an untoward incident under the Railways Act.
The High Court at Calcutta has overturned the dismissal of a compensation claim filed by the family of a man who died after falling from a Bandel local train in October 2018. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, sitting singly on the appellate side, found that the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench had erred in rejecting the claim despite a police investigation report and a formal seizure list documenting the recovery of a railway ticket from the deceased's pocket. The court awarded Rs 8,00,000 in compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim case. The Railway authority was directed to deposit the amount before the Registrar General, High Court Calcutta, within eight weeks.
The Death on the Rishra–Serampore Stretch
On 1 October 2018, the victim travelled to Baidyabati station for work and purchased a return journey ticket from Baidyabati to Belur. After completing his work at Belur, he boarded a Bandel local at night using the same return ticket. When the train reached km post 17/3–17/5 between Rishra and Serampore stations, he fell from near the door of his compartment.
The Rishra station master informed the concerned authorities. The Investigating Officer of Sheoraphuli GRPS reached the site at approximately 21:55 hrs the same night and registered U/D Case No. 82/18 dated 1 October 2018. An inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared. During the search of the dead body, two police doms found one railway ticket, which was produced by Kartick Dom. The ticket was seized and a seizure list was prepared bearing Kartick Dom's left thumb impression. Police filed a final report on 28 February 2019.
The appellants — the widow and other dependants — filed Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/KOL/142/2020 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. The Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence, and by its judgment and award dated 16 January 2024, dismissed the claim.
The Conflict Between Police and Railway Reports
The central factual dispute was direct and irreconcilable. The police investigation report stated that a railway ticket was recovered from the deceased. The Railway Authority's own inquiry produced the opposite finding: a report by the Post Commander, RPF Post/Bally, stated that when the RPF and GRPS personnel attended the spot, no railway journey ticket or pass or PTO was found on the deceased.
Before the Tribunal, the Railway also relied on the statement of one Lukman Ali, Head Constable RPF/Post/HNZM, who claimed that when he signed the seizure list, it was a blank paper with nothing written on it. The Tribunal accepted the Railway's version and dismissed the claim on the basis that the deceased had not been proved to be a bona fide passenger.
What Section 124A Requires
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes a no-fault liability on railway administrations when an untoward incident — including accidental falling from a train — causes death or injury to a passenger. The railway administration must pay prescribed compensation regardless of whether any wrongful act, neglect or default on its part is proved. Compensation is excluded only in cases involving suicide, self-inflicted injury, the passenger's own criminal act, intoxication or insanity, or a natural cause or pre-existing disease.
The Explanation to Section 124A defines “passenger” to include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. The threshold question before the court was therefore whether the appellants had discharged their burden of proving that the victim was such a passenger.
How Justice Chowdhury Reasoned Through the Evidence
Justice Chowdhury examined the statement of A.W. 1, the widow, who deposed that her husband had told her he would return home late on the night of 1 October 2018 after completing work first at Baidyabati and then at Belur. She stated that she tried calling his mobile phone late that night and that Sheoraphuli GRPS answered the call and informed her of the accident. In cross-examination, she confirmed that her husband worked as a security guard and maintained her account of the accident. The court found that cross-examination did not shake her testimony regarding the deceased returning home or the accident occurring between Rishra and Sheoraphuli stations.
On the ticket dispute, the court focused on the police investigation report submitted to the Magistrate under Section 174 CrPC. That report specifically recorded that two police doms searched the body and found one railway ticket produced by Kartick Dom. The seizure list bore Kartick Dom's name and left thumb impression. The court read these documents as a consistent chain of contemporaneous police records.
It then turned to Lukman Ali's claim that the seizure list was blank when he signed it. In cross-examination, Ali admitted his signature on the investigation report but said something was written in Bengali which he could not understand. The court noted that no Bengali writing appeared anywhere in the investigation report. It rejected Ali's evidence as unreliable on that ground alone.
A further and decisive point was procedural: the Railway Authority chose not to examine the Investigating Officer. The court held that when a police investigation is conducted in accordance with law and a seizure list is prepared, that record cannot be discarded without the Investigating Officer being cross-examined. Since the Railway never called the Investigating Officer, there was no basis to displace the police report.
Justice Chowdhury also addressed the broader evidentiary difficulty that claimants face in such cases. He referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Union of India v. Rina Devi, Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2018, that
The court also drew on the Karnataka High Court's reasoning in Smt. Yellamma v. Union of India, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6117 of 2016, which observed that it is unrealistic to expect claimants to produce eye witnesses when a passenger travels alone among strangers and the incident occurs at night on a railway track. The Karnataka High Court had held that imposing such an expectation on claimants is “ridicule on the part of the railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted.” Justice Chowdhury applied the same view to the facts before him.
The Railway's Defence Rejected
The Union of India, represented by Mr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty and Mr. Subrata Santra, argued that the RPF Post Commander's report was unambiguous: no ticket was found. The Railway maintained that without proof of a valid ticket, the deceased could not be a bona fide passenger and the case did not qualify as an untoward incident under Section 124A.
That argument did not survive scrutiny once the court weighed the police records against the RPF report. The police inquest report, the seizure list with Kartick Dom's thumb impression, and the widow's unchallenged testimony about the travel plan collectively satisfied the court that the appellants had discharged their initial burden. The Railway's failure to examine the Investigating Officer meant the competing RPF narrative had no independent forensic support before the court.
Order
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury allowed FMA 1315 of 2025 and set aside the judgment and award dated 16 January 2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in OA(IIu)/KOL/142/2020. The appellants were held entitled to compensation of Rs 8,00,000 from the Union of India along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim case up to the date of the judgment.
The Respondent — the Union of India — was directed to deposit Rs 8,00,000 along with the calculated interest before the Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta, within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The appellants were permitted to withdraw the amount upon compliance with the necessary formalities.