The Rajasthan High Court has directed the railway authorities to grant Rs 8 lakh compensation to the father of a man who died after falling off a moving train in 2017.In an order dated December 8, Justice Bipin Gupta allowed the plea challenging an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur bench, which had denied the plea of claim of the father on the ground that no train ticket was recovered.Noting that such an approach would run counter to both the spirit of the Act and the principles of social justice, the court said, “To deny compensation solely on the ground that a ticket was not found, particularly in situations where the deceased’s body is recovered in a mutilated or crushed state, would amount to imposing an unduly harsh, unrealistic, and inequitable burden on the claimants.”Also Read | Bombay HC upholds compensation to kin of man who died after falling from local trainCaseThe case stems from the tribunal’s order passed in 2022 following the petitioner’s compensation claim application filed in 2017, after the death of his son, who was onboard Mandore Express.The railways contested the claim on the ground that the victim was not a bona fide passenger, as he was not travelling without a valid ticket.Representing the railways, advocate V P Mathur further contended that the victim did not suffer injuries due to the untoward incident, as his body was found on the track, and therefore, the incident could not be considered an untoward incident, and said that the claim petition may be rejected.Also Read | SC goes extra mile to ensure widow gets Railways’ compensation after 23 years of legal battleArguments in the railway tribunalThe Railway Tribunal, Jaipur bench, raised multiple issues regarding the father’s compensation claim.Story continues below this adSuch as whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to a fall from the passenger-carrying train, suffered injuries, and died as a result thereof, and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) read with 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?Are the applicants the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation?After hearing the arguments of the parties, the tribunal decided that the train ticket and the case covered under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) read with 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, is against the father’s claim and dismissed the claim application.Story continues below this adRepresenting the father, advocates Ajay Shukla and Raghav Sharma submitted before the tribunal that although it had acknowledged that the applicants had discharged the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, it still went on to hold that he was not a bona fide passenger and that the case did not amount to an “untoward incident.”They argued that the claim was wrongly rejected merely because the body was found on the railway track.They also argued that the tribunal improperly relied on the DRM report, which was prepared belatedly, and was based on hearsay, and the DRM report also does not deny the death on account of being run over by the train.Also Read | New Delhi Railway Station stampede: Can government make ex-gratia payments to next of kin in cash?DecisionThe court held that from the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements, it emerges that the absence of a ticket, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the passenger being a not bona fide passenger.Story continues below this ad“The overall evidence strongly supports the probability that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train,” the court added.The court noted that the circumstances lend credence to the explanation that the ticket could not have been recovered owing to the severity of the injuries and condition of the body.“Merely non-recovery of a ticket in the present facts cannot be a ground to hold the victim, as not a bona fide passenger, to deny the benefit of benevolence legislation,” the court added.The court ruled that the legislative intent underlying Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A is unmistakably remedial and benevolent. Therefore, courts adopt a liberal and purposive interpretation that advances the object of the statute rather than frustrates it.Story continues below this adThe court held that the mere nonrecovery of a travel ticket, especially in circumstances where the victim’s body was found in a crushed condition, cannot constitute valid grounds to repudiate a legitimate compensation claim.The court ordered that the applicants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 8 lakh with an annual 7 percent interest.