The Bombay High Court has held that a railway employee travelling on a valid “Privilege Pass” cannot be treated as a ticketless traveler merely because he failed to fill in the specific journey details such as the date of travel on the pass.
In the case of Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare vs. Union of India, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had dismissed the compensation claim on the ground that the deceased was not a “bonafide passenger.”
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the widow of a railway employee who lost his life after falling from an Express train between Khandala and Monkey Hill point.
The Railway Claims Tribunal had previously recorded a finding that the death was a result of an “accidental fall” from the train, confirming the occurrence of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989. This finding was not challenged by the Railways.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application solely on the basis that the deceased was not a “bonafide passenger” at the time of the accident because the details of the journey were not filled in on his free railway pass.
The Legal Issue
The primary issue before the High Court was: “Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger?”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court examined the definition of a “passenger” under the Explanation to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket or a railway servant on duty. Since the deceased was admittedly not on duty at the time, the Court examined his status based on the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986.
The Court noted that there was no dispute that the deceased possessed a valid Second Class Free Pass (Privilege Pass). The controversy arose because the description required on the pass—namely the date of arrival, date of departure, and outward/inward journey details—had not been filled in by the deceased.
Addressing this, Justice Jitendra Jain observed:
“Merely because an employee holding a valid pass fails to mention himself the details referred to in the pass, same cannot be held to mean that the employee was travelling without a valid pass. There could be various reasons as to why an employee did not make an endorsement himself on the relevant pass. However, in the absence of any reason given in the impugned order, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the deceased.”
The Court further clarified the requirement of endorsements regarding reservations:
“If an employee wants a reservation, then he has to approach the ticket counter… However, if an employee decides not to travel by a reserved compartment, then such an endorsement may not be necessary. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was travelling by the reserved compartment. Therefore, non-endorsement on the pass is inconsequential.”
The Bench emphasized that since the travel was free and there was no evidence suggesting the deceased had exceeded his entitled number of trips, no adverse inference could be drawn against him.
Reliance on Precedents and Compensation
The Court referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pulipaka Varalakshmi & Ors. Versus Union of India, where a similar contention regarding a non-bonafide passenger was rejected.
However, following the ratio of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice Jain noted that while the deceased was a bonafide passenger, there was a lapse on his part for not filling in the journey details.
“In the instant case also, the deceased ought to have either got the endorsement done by the appropriate authorities or he himself should have made an endorsement on the details required in the pass i.e., date of journey, etc. This having not been done… full compensation cannot be granted.”
The Court also listed the following judgments as supporting views:
- Union of India Vs. Anandi @ Anandi Devi (Misc. Appeal No.168 of 2014)
- R. C. Jayamohan & Anr. Vs. Union of India (AIR OnLine 2020 Ker 1367)
- Jaya and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine Mad 34606)
- Surekha Suresh Jadhav & Anr. Vs. Union of India (First Appeal No.17 of 2016)
Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated November 11, 2011.
The Court exercised its discretion to award restricted compensation, directing the Respondent (Union of India) to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the accident until actual payment, subject to a cap of Rs. 8 Lakhs.
The Appellant was also permitted to amend the original application to bring the children of the deceased on record as dependents.
Case Details:
Case Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare vs. Union of India
Case No: First Appeal No. 315 of 2012
Coram: Justice Jitendra Jain
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Sainand Chaugule
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. T. J. Pandian with Mr. Gautam Modanwal
