- The Supreme Court criticised labelling a victim as a second-class passenger in documents
- The court linked such terms to offensive historical class divisions
- Passengers share responsibility for safety, it added
A train accident victim being called a "second-class passenger" in documents hasn't gone down well with the Supreme Court. Hearing his family's petition for compensation, which had been denied on the ground that no ticket was recovered from his body, the court linked the references to the "history of class divisions in our country" and called them "offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India".
"One aspect that caught our attention while perusing the manual and other related documents was the use of the term 'second class passenger'. While it is ostensibly linked to the expenditure incurred by the passenger to travel, we may suggest that the class connotation be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in recognition of the history of class divisions in our country and the same being offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India," a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh wrote in its 19-page verdict.
Also read: "Drop Doctor From Your Name": Top Court Raps Hospitals In 4-Year-Old's Rape Case
Supreme Court On Passengers' Duties
The Supreme Court observed that passengers are also responsible for ensuring their safety, not only the Railways.
"We may observe one more thing. It would be entirely unfair to cast sole responsibility upon the Railways. The passengers themselves have an equal responsibility. Incidents such as these are not hidden from the general public, and despite the painful ends that most of these people meet, there has not been a reform in habit, and people still insist on being daredevils in catching trains and making their way from one place to another. True it is that most of these choices are informed by one or the other practical consideration, but the risk stares one right in the face. Sometimes, then, practical considerations must give way to the preservation of life. It is unfortunate that in the economic rat race, such obvious aspects are readily kept on the back burner," it said.
Court Awards Compensation
The victim, Chandrakant Thakkar, had died after falling from a moving train in 2015. The Railways Claims Tribunal had rejected his wife's demand for compensation, saying no valid ticket was found around his body.
Also read: No Supreme Court Live Stream In Hearings For Those Without Legal Counsel
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the tribunal's verdict.
She approached the Supreme Court challenging the two judgments and urging it to issue an order for Rs 4 lakh as compensation and 18 per cent interest. She had written in her application that her husband wasn't travelling without a ticket, and it was in a bag that couldn't be recovered after the accident.
The Supreme Court ruled that a ticket not being found on the victim doesn't impact his status as a bona fide passenger.
"There is a statement by the appellant that the deceased had a ticket in his bag for the journey. There is no other way to prove this. There is no denial of the deceased travelling in the train and the occurrence of the incident...We are of the view that the courts below have erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant. The decision in Rina Devi (supra), subsequently approved by a Bench of three judges in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India26, records that merely because the ticket of a train journey was not found on the person of the deceased, it will not change his status as a bona fide passenger," the court observed.
Overturning the lower courts' verdicts, the top court granted the compensation of Rs 8,00,000 to the wife of the accident victim.
