Choti Beti vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,  1987 against the judgment dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/107/2021.

Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged incident an“untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the“Act”).

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 16.04.2012, the son of the appellant, Manoj Kumar Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), was travelling from Farrukhabad to Dariyaganj by Lucknow-Kasganj Passenger Train, on the strength of a valid second-class ticket, and while undertaking the said journey, he fell from the running train between  Bhatasa and Kaimganj Railway Stations, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on spot.

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  assails  the  impugned  judgment  by contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite sufficient evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and had suffered an accidental fall from a running train. It is submitted that although the journey ticket was not recovered during the panchnama, the same was subsequently produced on record. Learned counsel further submits that  the  panchnama  and  the  post-mortem  report  clearly  support  the  case  of an accidental fall from a train, and even the DRM report records the same. It is  further  contended  that  the  respondent  neither  verified  the  ticket,  nor  led any evidence to discredit the same, and therefore, the rejection of the claim is unsustainable.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident, and no information  about  the  alleged  incident  was  given  by  the  guard  or  driver  of any  train.  It  is  contended  that  the  case  does  not  fall  within  the  ambit  of  an“untoward  incident”  under  the  Act,  and  the  Tribunal  has  rightly  dismissed the claim.

This Court  has  heard  the arguments of both the parties and perused the material on record.

In the backdrop of the above facts, the issues that arise for consideration are  that, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the incident in question falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the contemporaneous evidence on record lends consistent support to the case of the appellant. The panchnama dated 16.04.2012, records that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the railway track between Bhatasa and Kaimganj stations with severe mutilating injuries, including amputation of limbs. In the opinion of the panchas, which has also been concurred with by the Sub- Inspector, the death occurred due to the deceased being cut after falling from a train.The GD entry dated 16.04.2012, being the earliest record of the incident, also reflects that information regarding a railway accident involving the deceased was received in close proximity to the time of occurrence. The evidentiary value of such contemporaneous entry lies in its spontaneity  and  proximity  to  the  incident. The  post-mortem  report  further attributes the cause of death to shock and haemorrhage  resulting from ante- mortem injuries, which are consistent with a railway accident involving a fall from a moving train.

Notably,  even  the  material  forming  part  of  the  DRM  report  does  not displace the aforesaid position. The statements recorded therein, including those  of  the  mother  and  brother  of  the  deceased,  indicate  that  the  deceased had fallen from a train while travelling from Farrukhabad to Dariyaganj. The place of occurrence is also consistently recorded as between Bhatasa and Kaimganj stations. The absence of any eyewitness has been noted in the said report; however, the conclusion drawn therein, to the effect that the deceased had come under the train otherwise than during the course of travel, is not supported by any direct evidence and rests on conjecture. Such a finding  is  not  borne  out  from the  record  and  overlooks  material  evidence indicative of a fall from a train.. The approach of the Tribunal, therefore, reflects an unwarranted reliance on conjecture in disregard of cogent and contemporaneous evidence on record.

Once it is established that the deceased was travelling by train and had fallen therefrom, the incident would squarely fall within the definition of an “untoward  incident”  under  Section  123(c)  of  the  Act.  In “Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar” (2008) 9 SCC 527, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the liability  under Section 124-A  is  strict  in  nature,  and arises  the moment an“untoward incident” is established.  The said statutory provision leaves little room for considerations such as negligence or alternative theories in the absence of proof of any of the exceptions. In the present case, no such exception  having  been  either  pleaded,  or  established  by the  respondent,  the liability of the Railways stands attracted, and the appellants are consequently entitled to compensation under the Act.

Insofar as the issue of bona fide travel is concerned, it is not in dispute that the journey  ticket was  not recovered from  the person  of the  deceased during  the  inquest  proceedings,  and  was  subsequently produced..  However, it is settledas  per  the law  laid  down in “Union of India v. Rina Devi” (2019) 3 SCC 572, that mere non-recovery  of a ticket from  the person of the deceased cannot,  by itself,  be  treated  as  conclusive  to  deny  the  status  of  a  bona  fide  passenger. The  initial burden on the  claimant is  only to place some  material on record to indicate that the deceased was travelling by train, whereafter the onus shifts upon the Railways to disprove the same.

In the present case, the appellant has discharged the said initial burden. The claim application specifically records that the deceased was travelling  from  Farrukhabad to  Dariyaganj  on  a  valid  second-class  ticket. The said assertion is duly supported by the affidavit of AW-1, wherein it has been stated that the deceased had undertaken the said journey. Significantly, this  version  finds  corroboration  in  the  statements  forming  part  of  the  DRM report, wherein it has been recorded that the ticket was recovered and handed  over  to  the  family.  The  consistency  in  the  version  of  the  appellant across the claim application, affidavit, lends credibility to the case set up by the appellant.

Merely  because  the  ticket  was  produced  subsequently  cannot  lead  to an inference that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The subsequent production of the ticket, in the absence of any material to doubt its authenticity, cannot be discarded solely on the ground that it was not found at  the time of inquest proceedings.  It is  not  uncommon,  in cases  of railway accidents  involving  severe  injuries  and  mutilation  of  the  body,  that personal belongings are displaced or not immediately recovered. The surrounding circumstances, including the consistent version of travel and the nature of the incident, assume greater significance in such situations and cannot be disregarded on mere technical grounds.

Furthermore, it has  been reiterated in“Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India” (2024) 9 SCC 656,  that  once the  claimant discharges  the initial  burden by  placing  on record material indicating that the deceased was travelling by train, the onus shifts  upon  the  Railways  to  rebut  the  same  by  leading  cogent  evidence.  In the present  case,  apart  from raising  a bald  plea  that  the deceased  was  not  a bona fide passenger, the respondent has neither verified the ticket nor conducted  any  inquiry  to  test  its  authenticity.  No  material  has  been  placed on record to discredit the consistent version emerging from the claim application, the affidavit of AW-1, and the statements forming part of the DRM record. The burden having thus shifted, and not having been discharged by the respondent, the presumption in favour of  bona fide travel remains unrebutted.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 27.04.2026.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.