Supreme Court has interpreted the provisions of the Railways Act to hold that the Railway Administration is liable to compensate passengers for untoward incidents that occur during the course of railway operations, regardless of whether there was any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the railway administration.

Supreme Court has taken a broad view of the Railways Act and its liability provisions. According to this interpretation, the Railway Administration bears the responsibility to compensate passengers for any untoward incidents, irrespective of fault or negligence on their part.

Bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice JK Maheshwari, reiterated the law established in a prior decision. By reiterating this law, the bench affirms the principle that the absence of a ticket alone is not sufficient evidence to refute the claim that the person involved was a genuine passenger.

Appeal filed by the family of a deceased man who fell from a running train and suffered severe injuries, including decapitation and amputation of his right hand. Unfortunately, the man passed away on the spot. The family had initially appealed to the High Court, seeking compensation. However, the High Court dismissed their appeal, concurring with the claims tribunal's determination that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

Court, in its analysis, took into account various pieces of evidence, including the FIR (First Information Report), inquest report, post-mortem report, and the final report. These documents collectively revealed that the deceased had fallen from the train, resulting in severe injuries such as decapitation and amputation of his right hand, which caused excessive blood loss and ultimately led to his death on the spot. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation report submitted by the Southern Railway, in accordance with Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003, did not deny the occurrence of an untoward incident. It seems that the railway authorities did not contest the fact that the incident took place. However, their position was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

The court regarded this failure to consider the relevant documents as a flaw in their decision-making process, rendering their findings "perverse" and subject to being set aside.

By stating that the findings were "perverse," the court suggests that the decisions of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were unreasonable or illogical in light of the available evidence.

The court took into consideration the testimony of the son of the deceased, who clearly stated that he had purchased a train ticket for the deceased and had given it to him. Additionally, the court found support for this claim in the inquest report and the investigation report.

Based on the court's ruling, the authorities were directed to pay an amount of Rs 8 lakh as compensation. This indicates that the court determined this sum as the appropriate and increased compensation amount under the amended Compensation Rules.

Case Title: Kamukayi and ors v. Union of India and Ors