The Supreme Court of India has advised Indian Railways to reconsider its terminology when referring to travelers as ‘second-class passengers’. The suggestion was made on Friday by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, who emphasized that such labels should reflect the type of coach rather than the individual traveling. This recommendation was made in light of India’s historical class divisions and its constitutional commitment to equality, as highlighted in the case of Lata v. Union of India and Another.
This observation emerged during a judgment that awarded compensation to the widow of Chandrakant Thakkar. Thakkar tragically passed away after falling from a moving train while traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad on November 28, 2015. The train involved was Train No. 12834, and the incident occurred between Khandbada and Khatgaon. His wife, Lata, was unable to present the train ticket as it was reportedly lost along with his travel bag during the accident, and police efforts to recover it proved unsuccessful.
The Railway Claims Tribunal in Bhopal had initially categorized Thakkar’s death as an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. However, the Tribunal rejected the compensation claim on the grounds that Thakkar could not be confirmed as a bona fide passenger. This decision was later upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in January 2024, which pointed to inconsistencies in Lata’s statements regarding the date of Thakkar’s journey.
The Supreme Court, however, overturned these decisions, stating that failing to recover a ticket does not automatically prove a deceased was traveling without one. The Court clarified that the claimant’s initial burden of proof can be satisfied by submitting an affidavit outlining the relevant facts, at which point the burden shifts to the Railways. The Court emphasized that the standard of proof in these cases is based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that compensation provisions for railway accidents are inherently beneficial and should be interpreted with an expansive approach. The objective should remain focused on providing accessible compensation through a humanitarian lens. The Court also scrutinized railway manuals relating to ticket checks, overcrowding, footboard travel, and passenger safety, noting that while these manuals demonstrate thoughtful foreplanning, their implementation is lacking.
More Read
The Court acknowledged that responsibility does not lie solely with the Railways, observing that passengers often engage in risky behaviors such as boarding moving trains. It suggested that both the Railways and passengers share responsibility for safety. The Bench proposed that increasing the Railways’ workforce could enhance safety measures, also providing employment opportunities for young people.
Ultimately, the Court directed the Railways to compensate Lata with ₹8 lakh within four weeks. Representing the appellant were Advocates Shweta Priyadarshini, Nishi Singh, Rohit Kumar Singh, Bhagwati, and Shrika Gautam. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, with Advocates Seema Bengani, Prashant Singh, Sweksha, Radhika Mishra, and Amrish Kumar.
