Subhash Chand @ Subhash Chandra & Anr vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi,(hereinafter as the “Tribunal”) in Case No. OA/II(U)/DLI/744/2025, titled “Subhash Chand @ Subhash Chandra & Anr. v. Union of India”.

Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application  filed  by  the  appellants  on  the  ground  that  the  that  the  deceased was  not  a bona  fide  passenger  and that the  alleged incident did  not  amount to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Briefly  stated,  the facts  of the case,  as  set out by  the claimants,  are that on 06.06.2024, one Sanju Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the“deceased”) had purchased a journey ticket bearing No. UCC-37999149 for travelling from Tundla to Bharthana by EMU Train No. 04186. Due to heavy rush inside the train compartment, she was standing near the gate, upon the train reaching Bharthana Railway Station, she was unable to deboard. In the process of alighting, she accidentally fell from the train after the station, sustaining serious injuries. She died at the spot.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in declining to confer the status of a bona fide even though the ticket was produced  by  the  father  of  the  deceased which  was  verified  by  the  Railway authorities. Learned counsel further contends that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the running train due to heavy rush, which indicates that the death occurred in an untoward incident.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment  and  contends  that  the alleged  incident  was  not  an  accidental  fall from the train but occurred due to the deceased having jumped from the moving train. It is contended that the record, including the Station Memo and DRM report, clearly indicates that information was received from a passenger that a girl had jumped from the moving train after it left Bharthana station. It is further submitted that no journey ticket was recovered  during  jamatalashi,  and  the  ticket  subsequently  produced  by  the father  of  the  deceased  cannot  be  conclusively  linked  to  the  travel  taken  by deceased.

I  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  through the record.

Vikas Kumar, Head Constable, RPF Post Etawah, stated that on 06.06.2024, during his duty at Bharthana Railway Station, the Station Master informed him that a girl had jumped from Train No. 04186 approximately 2 kms after departing from Bharthana Station. Upon receiving the information, he immediately proceeded towards the track. When they reached KM No. 1134/28, they found a girl lying at a distance of about 10-12 feet on the north side of the down track. Thereafter, the information was conveyed to the Station Master, Bharthana. The Station Master issued a memo to the Civil Police Station, Bharthana. During the search, a small bag was recovered from the spot, bearing the name “F-H College of Nursing, Etmadpur, Agra”.

The Post Mortem Report records that the deceased, died due to COMA antemortem head injury. The DRM Report concludes that the deceased was travelling in Train no. 04186 from Tundla to Bharthana. However,  relying  upon  the  Station  Memo,  it  was  further  observed  that  the incident occurred due to the deceased allegedly  jumping from  the moving train between Bharthana and Samho after the train had departed. The report also  records  that  no  railway  ticket  was  recovered  from  the  deceased  at  the spot.

It is noted that although no journey ticket was recorded during the course of jamatalashi, the belongings of the deceased, including her bag, were handed over to the father/appellant no. 1, who, upon checking the same, found the journey ticket and thereafter produced it before the authorities.  The  ticket  so  produced  was  verified by  the  Railway  authorities and  found  to  have  been  issued  from  Tundla  Railway Station  on  the  date  of the incident. The surrounding circumstances also support the case of the appellants, inasmuch as the deceased, who was residing at a hostel in Tundla, had informed appellant no.1 that she was returning home to Bharthana and was travelling by Train no. 04186 EMU. These facts cumulatively establish  the  foundational  requirement of  bona  fide travel and discharge the initial burden cast upon the appellants. The Tribunal, however, rejected the claim solely on the ground of non-recovery of the ticket during jamatalashi and its subsequent production by the father, which, in the

opinion of this Court, is unsustainable. Once the validity of the journey ticket stands established, a presumption arises in favour of  bona fide travel, unless rebutted by cogent evidence, which is absent in the present case. (Ref: Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572).

Insofar as the issue whether the alleged incident amounts to an“untoward incident” is concerned, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased had  ‘jumped’  from  the  moving  train  on  the  basis  of  a  statement  of  an  RPF official,  who  had  allegedly  received  such  information  from  an  unidentified passenger. Admittedly, the said passenger was neither identified nor examined, and no independent eyewitness has been produced to support this version. In the absence of any cogent material on record, the finding that the deceased had jumped from the train remains only hearsay and cannot be sustained. The Tribunal, despite noting the nature and gravity of the injuries mentioned in Post Mortem Report, drew an inference of a deliberate act, which is speculative and unsupported by any eye witness account or medical opinion on record.

It  is  well  settled  that  Section  124-A  of  the  Railways  Act  embodies  a beneficial statutory scheme and must therefore be construed in a liberal manner. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the provisions governing compensation for railway accidents must receive a purposive interpretation so as to advance the object  of providing relief to victims of railway accidents,  rather than being  defeated by hyper-technical  objections. In  Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527,  the  Supreme  Court  held that once the occurrence of an “untoward incident” is established and the case does not fall within any of the statutory exceptions, the liability of the Railways  under  Section  124-A  is  strict.  In  the  present  case,  the  respondent has failed to conclusively establish that the death of the deceased falls within any of the exceptions carved out under the proviso to  Section 124-A of the Act.

Considering the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal, in the present case, adopted an unduly rigid standard of proof,  overlooking  the  beneficial  object of the  Act  and the settled  principle that  proceedings  thereunder  are  intended  to  provide  prompt  and  efficacious relief to the victims of railway accidents.

In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to  disburse the  same within four weeks from  the receipt of a  copy  of this order.

For  this  purpose,  the  matter  be  listed  before  the  Tribunal  at  the  first instance on 06.04.2026.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

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