The Calcutta High Court has observed that merely because a ticket is not found, a dead person cannot be said to be a ticketless traveller.

The Court was hearing an appeal by the victim's family assailing the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.

It was held that in the event there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt should go in favour of the victim's family.

The Bench of Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed, "In many cases of Railway untoward incident where ticket could not be recovered from victim reliance can be placed on oral evidence. Normally a person does not dare to travel without ticket for the fear of being caught and punished. Moreover when a passenger has to face Travelling Ticket Examiner or ticket collector, he is bound to produce the ticket but when the person is dead he should not be charged with the allegation that he was travelling without ticket as he will not be in a position to defend himself. A person usually keeps his ticket either in money purse or shirt pocket or pant pocket or inside shirt pocket. Merely because ticket is not found a dead person cannot be said to be a ticketless traveller. In the event there is a reasonable doubt the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the victims family."

Advocate Saswata Bhattacharyya appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Rituparna Modak appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts of the Case

The victim fell down while travelling in a train due to sudden jerks and an overcrowded train. As a result, he died at the site of the incident. It was the case of the Appellants that the victim was a bona fide passenger on the said running train. It was a stormy day, and the train was running late.

The Tribunal dismissed the case and said that the Appellants were not entitled to the relief. Hence, the present appeal was filed.

Submissions of the Parties

The Appellants submitted that due to heavy gathering, the victim fell down and died. It was submitted that the ticket showed that it was purchased on the said day. It was also submitted that from the evidence of the eyewitness, it was clearly shown that the victim fell down between Santragachi and Mourigram station. 

Per contra, the Railway Authority submitted that the time stated by the witness was inconsistent, for which the case of the appellant becomes doubtful. 

Observations of the Court

The Court noted that the police report regarding the recovered ticket, combined with a witness's testimony about the purchase, established that the victim was a bona fide passenger.

The Court held, "Due to heavy rush Pintu Pal and Samaresh Pal entered into the Coach of local train together and they saw Baptu Pal standing at the door in the same running train. Thus upon comparative reading of the statement of Pintu Pal before Court as well as before RPF authority there is no such inconsistency which will make his statement unbelievable. Thus in the facts and circumstances this Court is of the view that the claimants are able to prove that the death of Baptu Pal was an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act 1989."

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and held that the Appellants were entitled to compensation.

The Court directed the Railway Authority to pay compensation of Rs. 8 lakh to the Appellants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim case.

Cause Title: Anamika Halder (Pal) & Ors. v. Union of India [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:1302]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocates Saswata Bhattacharyya and R. N. Basu

Respondent: Advocates Rituparna Modak, Tushar Kanti Har and Sukanta Ghosh

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: