Arti And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5593-2018 (O&M)

ARTI AND OTHERS ...Appellants
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 22.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.10.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.10.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced Full
or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, Not applicable
and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Atul Bhatia, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Himanshu Malik, Sr. Panel Counsel-UOI.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the 1987 Act”), challenge has been laid to the
judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh
Bench, Chandigarh (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim application
preferred at the instance of appellants/claimants seeking compensation of
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --2--
Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest, on account of the death of Vishnu in an alleged
untoward incident dated 26.09.2014, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that deceased Vishnu, son of
Manohari, resident of Kheda Mohalla, Kosi Kalan, District Mathura (U.P.), was
working as a tailor at Palwal, Ballabgarh and Delhi and used to travel by train from
Kosi Kalan to the aforesaid places. On 26.09.2014, he went to Ballabgarh for
stitching a coat. After finishing his work, he reached Ballabgarh railway station in
the evening, purchased a journey ticket for Kosi Kalan and boarded a passenger
train. It was pleaded that, on account of heavy rush in the train, when it reached
KM No. 1480/30-32 near the newly constructed Road Over Bridge at Palwal, a
sudden jerk resulted in his falling from the train and sustaining injuries. He was
taken to the hospital at Palwal in an ACE ambulance but succumbed to his injuries
on the way. The Deputy Station Superintendent, Palwal, accordingly sent a memo
to the Government Railway Police, Palwal (for short, “the GRP”), and the hospital
also intimated the GRP regarding the death. It was further pleaded that the journey
ticket was lost in the incident.
3. Upon notice, the respondent contested the claim application by filing
a written statement, raising preliminary objections that no untoward incident,
within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989 (for short, “the Act”), occurred and that the deceased was neither a passenger
nor a bona fide passenger. The averments made in the claim application were
denied on merits, either as incorrect or for want of knowledge.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --3--
“(i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train at the time
of the incident?
(ii) Whether the alleged incident falls within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2)
read with Section 124-A of the Act?
(iii) Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased?
(iv) Relief.”
5. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issues No. 1 and 2 against the
applicants, primarily relied upon the fact that AW-1 did not accompany the
deceased on the date of the incident and did not witnessed him purchasing a ticket,
boarding the train or falling therefrom. It further observed that no ticket or other
article was recovered from the deceased during his personal search and that the
family members failed to explain the delay in discovering his death or to produce
evidence of any missing report. The Tribunal also held that merely finding a body
on or near a railway track was insufficient to establish that the deceased was
travelling by train. The averments regarding the deceased boarding the train at
Ballabgarh; the rush in the train and the sudden jerk were treated as conjectural.
Ultimately, reliance was placed upon the RPF enquiry report, which attributed the
death to the deceased having crossed the railway lines unauthorisedly and having
been hit by an unknown train.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings
recorded by the Tribunal were contrary to the evidence available on record and
based on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the non-recovery of the
journey ticket by itself could not be a ground to deny the claim, particularly when
the deceased was first found injured by outsiders, shifted to the hospital in an
ambulance and was subjected to personal search only thereafter. The fact that no
article whatsoever was recovered from his person lends support to the possibility
SONIKA
that the contents of his pockets, including the ticket, were lost during the incident
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --4--
or while he was being shifted to the hospital. He further contended that the
Tribunal failed to appreciate the scope of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Act and
the settled position of law that the initial burden upon the claimants was not
onerous and that non-recovery of a journey ticket was not conclusive against them.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rachna and
others v. Union of India , decided on 22.03.2017 , in support of the submission that
the circumstances in which a body was found within railway premises was to be
considered while determining whether the deceased was lawfully present there.
Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the deceased's father,
brother and daughter, recorded by the GRP on 01.10.2014, established that the
deceased regularly travelled by train for his tailoring work; went to Ballabgarh on
the date of the incident and failed to return home. The learned Tribunal overlooked
the enquiries made by the family during the intervening period and erroneously
drew an adverse inference from the absence of a missing report. It was also argued
that the conclusion that the deceased was crossing the railway lines unauthorisedly
was wholly unsupported by evidence, as the RPF report itself acknowledged the
absence of any eye-witness and the inability to identify the train involved. The
contemporaneous police proceedings and the post-mortem report, according to
learned counsel, support the case of a railway accident. It was, accordingly, prayed
that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellants be granted the relief to
which they are entitled in law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned
judgment and submited that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was
a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident. It was contended that the findings
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --5--
recorded by the Tribunal were based upon the material available on record,
particularly the RPF enquiry report, and did not warrant interference by this Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
9. Before proceeding to examine the rival submissions, it would be apposite to
notice the statutory framework governing the claim. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act
includes within the expression “untoward incident” the accidental falling of any
passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A provides for
compensation on the principle of no-fault liability in cases where a passenger dies
or sustains injury in an untoward incident, subject to the exceptions specifically
enumerated in the proviso thereto. The Explanation to Section 124-A defines a
passenger to include, inter alia, a person who has purchased a valid ticket for
travelling by a train carrying passengers and becomes a victim of an untoward
incident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 , has held that the provisions relating to compensation
for untoward incidents are beneficial in nature and that the liability of the Railways
does not depend upon proof of wrongful act, neglect or default on its part. Further,
in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , it has been held that non-
recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, justify rejection of a claim and that the
initial burden upon the claimants is a light one, which may be discharged by
leading appropriate evidence, whereafter the onus shifts to the Railways to rebut
the same by cogent material. The issue, therefore, has to be examined on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the identity of the deceased is not
in dispute. The material on record establishes that, at about 20.50 hours on
SONIKA 26.09.2014, the Deputy Station Superintendent, Palwal, informed the GRP that an
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --6--
injured person was lying near the newly constructed ROB at KM No. 1480/30-32
and was shifted to the hospital by outsiders in an ACE ambulance. The hospital
thereafter intimated the GRP regarding the arrival of an unknown dead body,
whereupon the inquest proceedings were initiated. The deceased was subsequently
identified by his family members on 01.10.2014 from his photographs and clothes.
The statements of the father and brother also refer to the name “Vishnu” being
written on the deceased's hand, while the post-mortem report records tattoo marks
on his right arm and hand. The aforesaid circumstances establish the identity of the
deceased and the fact that he sustained injuries in the vicinity of the railway line
and died shortly thereafter. The material circumstances, therefore, required
consideration in their entirety rather than being examined in isolation.
10.1 The principal ground which weighed with the Tribunal in holding that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger is the non-recovery of the journey ticket or
any other article during his personal search. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the aforesaid approach is not sustainable. The record reveals that the
deceased was first noticed lying injured by outsiders, was shifted to the hospital in
an ambulance and was brought to the casualty. The personal search was conducted
thereafter in the hospital dead-house. Ex. AW-1/4, Ex. AW-1/7 and the RPF report
all record that nothing was recovered from his person. The Tribunal failed to
consider that the absence of any article whatsoever, and not merely the journey
ticket, was to be examined in the backdrop of the circumstances in which the
deceased was found and shifted to the hospital. No material was brought on record
to establish that the deceased was searched at the place where he was first found or
that any effort was made to recover his belongings from the spot. In these
circumstances, the possibility of the ticket having been lost during the incident or
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --7--
in the course of shifting the injured person cannot be ruled out. In Rina Devi
(supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the mere non-
recovery of a ticket is not sufficient to reject a claim where the surrounding
circumstances support the claimants' version. The learned Tribunal, by treating the
absence of a ticket as a decisive circumstance, failed to apply the aforesaid settled
principle of law.
10.2 The learned Tribunal also placed undue emphasis on the fact that AW-1
did not accompany her father on the date of the incident and did not witness the
occurrence. It is evident from the record that the appellants never claimed that AW-
1 was an eye-witness to the incident. Her evidence was required to be considered
along with the other material brought on record. The statements of the deceased's
father, brother and daughter, recorded by the GRP on 01.10.2014, consistently
disclose that the deceased was a tailor and regularly travelled by train between
Kosi Kalan, Palwal, Ballabgarh and Delhi in connection with his work. They
further establish that he went to Ballabgarh on 26.09.2014 for stitching a coat and
did not return home. The family members subsequently made enquiries at the
places where the deceased ordinarily worked and identified him from his
photographs and clothes. The aforesaid statements were recorded during the course
of the police proceedings, much before the institution of the claim application.
They lend corroboration to the appellants' version regarding the deceased's
occupation, his usual mode of travel and his journey on the date of the incident.
The source of the claimants' knowledge was, therefore, discernible from the record.
Their inability to witness the actual fall could not, by itself, be treated as a
circumstance fatal to the claim. Furthermore, the place and time of the occurrence
also assume significance. The RPF enquiry report places the incident at KM No.
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --8--
1480/30-32 between Palwal and Asawati railway stations. The memo issued by the
Deputy Station Superintendent, Palwal, at 20.50 hours and the subsequent entry
regarding receipt of information by the GRP at 21.15 hours establish that the
incident came to the notice of the authorities during the evening of 26.09.2014.
These circumstances are consistent with the appellants' version that the deceased
was returning from Ballabgarh towards Kosi Kalan after completing his work. The
learned Tribunal failed to examine the place and time of the occurrence in
conjunction with the evidence regarding the deceased's usual travel by train and his
departure for Ballabgarh on the date in question. The cumulative effect of these
circumstances could not have been discarded merely because no eye-witness to the
fall was available.
10.3 The adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal on account of the interval
between the date of the incident and the identification of the deceased is equally
unsustainable. The statement of Manohari, father of the deceased, records that he
made enquiries by telephone on 27.09.2014 at Ballabgarh, Palwal and Delhi. The
statement of Revti, brother of the deceased, records that the family visited these
places and learnt at Ballabgarh that the deceased left for Kosi Kalan in the evening.
The statement of Arti further discloses that relatives and other tailors were
contacted when the deceased failed to return home. On the other hand, the
contemporaneous police record reveals that the deceased remained unidentified
despite efforts by the authorities. His photographs and thumb impressions were
taken, and the police initiated proceedings for disposal of the unclaimed body. The
family members identified the deceased only on 01.10.2014 from the photographs
and clothes. In view of the aforesaid material, the finding that the family did not
make effort to trace the deceased is contrary to the evidence on record. In any
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --9--
event, the absence of a missing report cannot, by itself, determine whether the
deceased was a bona fide passenger. Additionally, the medical and police evidence
also does not support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the deceased was
run over by an unknown train while crossing the railway lines unauthorisedly. The
post-mortem report records multiple contusions over the right lateral chest wall,
right hypochondrium and right iliac region, besides injuries to the right upper leg,
left elbow and right arm. The cause of death was recorded as injury to the brain,
with the interval between injury and death being a few minutes. The Medical
Officer observed that the possibility of a railway accident could not be ruled out.
The contemporaneous GRP proceedings, including Ex. AW-1/3, Ex. AW-1/5, Ex.
AW-1/13 and Ex. AW-1/14, refer to the possibility of death resulting from injuries
caused by a railway train. None of these documents records that the deceased was
seen crossing the railway lines or that he was run over by a train. In the absence of
any such material, the conclusion that the deceased was crossing the track
unauthorisedly remains unsupported by the contemporaneous record. The learned
Tribunal's reliance upon the RPF enquiry report, also referred to as the DRM's
enquiry report, does not improve the respondent's case. The report itself records
that no eye-witness was available at the spot and that the train, driver, guard and
TTE could not be identified. Despite the absence of direct evidence, the enquiry
concluded that the deceased was hit by an unknown train while crossing the
railway lines unauthorisedly. The basis for such a conclusion is not apparent from
the report. Further, the statement of Arti recorded during the RPF enquiry, to the
effect that she did not know how the accident occurred, does not contradict the
appellants' case. She was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and could not have
been expected to state the precise manner in which it took place. Her statement is
otherwise consistent with the contemporaneous statements recorded by the GRP
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --10--
regarding the deceased's occupation and his journey on the date of the incident.
The report also refers to the absence of a journey ticket, which, for the reasons
already discussed, cannot be treated as conclusive against the appellants.
Moreover, there is an inconsistency regarding the time of the occurrence, as the
report mentions approximately 21.50 hours, whereas the memo issued by the
Deputy Station Superintendent and the report of the Inspector In-charge, RPF,
Faridabad, refer to 20.50 hours. In the absence of any eye-witness or other cogent
material supporting the conclusion that the deceased was crossing the railway lines
unauthorisedly, the RPF enquiry report could not have been accepted as decisive
evidence, particularly when its conclusion runs contrary to the circumstances
emerging from the contemporaneous record. Even otherwise, negligence on the
part of a passenger is not, by itself, an exclusion contemplated under the proviso to
Section 124-A of the Act.
10.4 It is correct that the mere finding of a body near a railway track would not,
in every case, be sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
However, the present case cannot be decided by isolating that circumstance from
the remaining evidence. The appellants led evidence regarding the deceased's
occupation and usual mode of travel; his departure for Ballabgarh on the date of
the incident; the place and time at which he was found injured; the nature of the
injuries sustained by him; and the subsequent identification of his body. These
circumstances, when considered cumulatively, lend substantial support to the
appellants' version. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rachna (supra),
decided on 22.03.2017 , relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, also
lends support to the submission that the circumstances in which a deceased is
found within railway premises have to be considered while determining the nature
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --11--
of the incident and the burden of proof. In the present case, the respondent failed to
produce cogent evidence to establish that the deceased was crossing the railway
lines unauthorisedly or that his death fell within any of the statutory exclusions
under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. On an overall appreciation of the
evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have established,
on a preponderance of probabilities, that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide
passenger and that his death resulted from an untoward incident within the
meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Act. The learned
Tribunal also erred in approaching the question solely with reference to the
definition of “passenger” under Section 2(29) of the Act, without properly
appreciating the statutory scheme of Section 124-A and the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) . The issue regarding non-
recovery of the journey ticket was required to be examined in the light of the
totality of the circumstances and not treated as conclusive against the claimants.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal further fail to adequately deal with the
material documentary evidence and the circumstances specifically relied upon by
the appellants.
10.5 In view of the foregoing discussion, the findings returned by the Tribunal
on Issues No. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly set aside.
Both issues are decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.
11. The learned Tribunal did not return any finding on Issues No. 3 and 4,
relating to dependency and relief, as the claim application was dismissed on the
question of the deceased not being a bona fide passenger and the nature of the
incident. However, the relevant material is already available on record. The
statements of the deceased's father, brother and daughter, recorded during the GRP
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --12--
proceedings, establish that the wife of the deceased had predeceased him and that
he was survived by his daughter, son and aged father. The daughter was about 19
years of age, the son about 15 to 16 years of age, and the father about 80 years of
age at the relevant time. The aforesaid material is sufficient to determine the
entitlement of the appellants without relegating them to another round of litigation
before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants are held entitled to compensation
under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, read with the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as applicable on the date of
the incident. The compensation shall be apportioned amongst the eligible
appellants in accordance with law.
12. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 26.09.2014, whereas
the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 22.02.2018. In view of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) and
subsequently reiterated in Radha Yadav v. Union of India , (2019) 3 SCC 410 , the
compensation applicable on the date of the accident, together with reasonable
interest thereon, is to be compared with the amount of compensation prescribed on
the date of the award, and the higher of the two is to be awarded. In the present
case, the accident having occurred in the year 2014, the appellants would be
entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- applicable at the relevant time, along
with interest thereon, or Rs. 8,00,000/-, whichever is higher. In Rina Devi (supra) ,
while dealing with the question of interest under Section 124-A of the Act, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 18 as under:
“18. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi
(supra) held that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from the date of
application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest
was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi (supra), rate of
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5593-2018 (O&M) --13--
interest has to be reasonable rate at par with accident claim cases. We are of
the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be
awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways
arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal
position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.
The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.”

The aforesaid principle makes it clear that interest is payable from the stage
when the liability of the Railway Administration arises and continues till payment.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
22.02.2018 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is
set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along
with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application till realization , or Rs. 8,00,000/ -, whichever is higher, in terms of the
principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra) and Radha Yadav (supra) . The Railway
Administration shall deposit the amount so determined, along with accrued
interest, before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter
disburse the amount amongst the eligible dependants in accordance with law. In
case the respondents fail to deposit the amount within the aforesaid period of three
months, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount
payable from the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of actual
realization.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
30.10.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
( i)Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No(ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No
SONIKA
2026.10.31 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document