New Delhi, Observing that a hyper technical approach should be avoided, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not deny a legitimate claim of compensation in railway accidents.
The court made the observation while setting aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, which refused compensation to the widow and son of a man who died in an alleged railway accident.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt. Welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities.
Section 124A of the Railways Act deals with compensation on account of untoward accidents.
The top court said once the foundational facts of possession or issuance of a valid ticket and occurrence of an accidental fall from a train are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of the claimant.
"Mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989, particularly Chapter XIII, which deals with liability of railway administration for death and injury to passenger due to accident. A hyper technical approach which would frustrate the object of providing relief to victims of railway accidents should be eschewed," the bench said.
{{/usCountry}}"Mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989, particularly Chapter XIII, which deals with liability of railway administration for death and injury to passenger due to accident. A hyper technical approach which would frustrate the object of providing relief to victims of railway accidents should be eschewed," the bench said.
{{/usCountry}}The apex court said the railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in the investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses.
"To hold otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a social justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race," the bench said.
The court held that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the railway administration.
"The absence of a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the claimant's version.
"This principle shall guide all future tribunals and high courts in construing Section 124-A, so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment," the bench said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.