Railway Claims Tribunal – The initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways- The mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. (Para 13)
Post-mortem reports – Conclusions in post-mortem reports as to the time of death are approximations. This is also indicated by the fact that they usually provide a window of time in which the deceased may have died. A margin of error of about half a day in cases where compensation is at issue is not disproportionate, where the evidence is otherwise corroborated by the material on record. (Para 17)
Summary: Appellant claimed that her suffered a fatal fall from a moving train and died and sought compensation of Rs 4,00,000 – Railway Claims Tribuna dismissed the claim, concluding that the deceased was not travelling on the train- High Court dismissed appeal- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted- From the material on record, it can be concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question and that he sustained grave injuries leading to his death, due to his fall from the train- the appellant is entitled to compensation quantified at Rs 8,00,000.