Rekha And Ors vs Union Of India

1 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 05.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 09.09.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced
or whether the full judgment is pronounced
Full
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment
and reasons thereof.
Not
applicable

REKHA AND OTHERS …Appellants
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA ….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. B.S. Kanwar, Sr. Panel Counsel
for the respondent (thr. V.C.)


HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated
23.07.2015 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh
Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim
application filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of
death of Naresh Kumar in an untoward railway incident was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants before the
Tribunal was that Naresh Kumar, aged about 31 years, on 08.05.2012,
went to meet his maternal grandfather at Akabarpur, Mathura. He
reached Palwal Railway Station along with his uncle Hansraj. At about
8.00 a.m., Hansraj purchased a journey ticket for him from Palwal to
Ajhai and boarded him in the Palwal-Agra EMU train. When the train
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)


reached near kilometer No.1479/15-17 between Palwal and Rundhi
Railway Stations, it allegedly gave a heavy jerk, as a result whereof
Naresh Kumar accidentally fell from the running train and sustained fatal
injuries. The occurrence was registered by GRP, Faridabad vide DDR
No.12 dated 08.05.2012.
3. The appellants examined Rekha Rani, widow of the deceased,
as AW-1 and Hansraj as AW-2. Various documents relating to the
occurrence, post-mortem, death of the deceased and relationship of the
appellants with him were also brought on record. The respondent-
Railways, on the other hand, relied upon the DRM report and examined
its witnesses.
4. The Tribunal, while deciding issues No.1 and 2 against the
appellants, primarily proceeded on the basis that no journey ticket was
recovered from the dead body and that there were certain discrepancies
in the statements made by the relatives of the deceased before the GRP.
The Tribunal further relied upon the timing of the journey and the fact that
the dead body was noticed by the railway Keyman at about 8.45 a.m. to
conclude that the deceased could not have fallen from the train in
question and probably died while crossing the railway track.
Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof,
present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants.
4.1 It may also be noticed that though the deceased in the present
case is admittedly Naresh Kumar, the Tribunal, at page 13 of its
judgment, has referred to the deceased as ‘Gulab Singh’. This apparent
error is significant, inasmuch as it reflects the possibility that facts and
material pertaining to some other case may have got mixed up with the
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)


present matter, thereby casting a serious doubt on the manner in which
the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and record before it.
4.2 It may further be noticed that Brahm Parkash, in his statement
recorded before the GRP (Ex.AW-13, page 23 of the paper-book),
himself stated towards the end that the said statement was not final and
that he would reword the same after verification of the actual facts. This
material aspect, which considerably diminishes the evidentiary value that
could be attached to the discrepancies in the statements recorded during
the police proceedings, appears to have been completely ignored by the
Tribunal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book.
6. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether
the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger merely because the journey ticket was not recovered from
his person and, consequently, whether the death of the deceased could
be said to have resulted from an untoward incident. In this regard, the
approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , categorically
held that mere absence of a ticket from the person of the deceased does
not, by itself, negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The
initial burden upon the claimant is to place before the Tribunal the
relevant facts and circumstances indicating bona fide travel, whereafter
the burden shifts upon the Railways to establish otherwise.
6.1 In the present case, the appellants specifically pleaded that the
deceased undertook the journey from Palwal to Ajhai and that his uncle
Hansraj purchased the journey ticket and himself boarded the deceased
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)


in the train. Hansraj appeared as AW-2 and supported this version on
oath. His testimony could not have been discarded merely on the basis of
certain discrepancies in statements recorded during the police
proceedings, particularly when the occurrence itself was admittedly
registered by the GRP and the deceased was found dead on the railway
track at the relevant place. The Tribunal has also attached undue
significance to the non-recovery of the ticket from the dead body. The
explanation furnished by the appellants was that the shirt of the
deceased, in which the ticket, cash and certain documents were kept,
was lost during the occurrence. The material on record, including the
Death Report prepared by the GRP, P.S. Faridabad, records the
condition of the dead body and the fact that there was no cloth on the
upper part of the body of the deceased. Thus, the possibility of loss of the
ticket in the course of the accident could not have been ruled out merely
because the same was not recovered.
6.2 The Tribunal has essentially disbelieved the occurrence on two
grounds, namely, the discrepancy regarding the deceased reaching the
railway station well before the purchase of the ticket, and the timing at
which the dead body was noticed. Neither ground, however, withstands
scrutiny. The discrepancy regarding the deceased reaching the railway
station at about 4.00 a.m. and boarding the train at about 8.00 a.m. could
not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim. Such
discrepancy, particularly in the absence of any direct evidence
establishing that the deceased was not travelling by train, could not
outweigh the positive testimony of AW-2 and the contemporaneous
railway/police record showing the deceased's death at the relevant
railway location. Similarly, the mere fact that the dead body of the
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)


deceased was noticed at about 8.45 a.m. could not, by itself, constitute a
ground to disbelieve the occurrence.
6.3 It may also be noticed that the mother of the deceased, in her
statement recorded during the course of investigation, specifically stated
that the death of Naresh was on account of a fall from the train. This
piece of evidence lends further corroboration to the case set up by the
appellants and could not have been ignored by the Tribunal.
7. Furthermore, the Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the
deceased must have been crossing the railway track and was hit by an
unknown train. This finding is based essentially upon inference drawn
from the DRM report and the timing of detection of the dead body. There
is, however, no cogent evidence on record to establish that the deceased
was a trespasser or that he was struck while crossing the railway track.
Significantly, if the deceased had indeed been struck by an unknown
train while crossing the track, one would ordinarily have expected a
report to that effect by the driver or guard of the train concerned to some
railway station along the route. Admittedly, no such report or material has
been produced by the respondent-Railways, and an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against them for withholding such material, which was
peculiarly within their knowledge and possession. A mere possibility
cannot substitute proof, particularly when the claimants have produced
evidence of the deceased having boarded a passenger train.
7.1 It is also settled that Section 124-A of the Railways Act
incorporates the principle of no-fault liability in respect of an untoward
incident, subject to the statutory exceptions. An accidental fall of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers is specifically included within
the definition of an “untoward incident”. The Supreme Court has further
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)


clarified that mere negligence or carelessness of a passenger cannot, by
itself, be treated as a self-inflicted injury so as to defeat a claim under
Section 124-A.
8. In the facts of the present case, on an overall appreciation of the
evidence, the appellants discharged the initial burden of establishing that
the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger. The respondent-
Railways failed to rebut the same by producing any cogent evidence
establishing that the deceased was not travelling in the train. The finding
of the Tribunal on issue No.1, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
8.1 Once the deceased is held to have been a bona fide passenger,
the circumstances in which his dead body was found at kilometer
No.1479/15-17, coupled with the evidence led by the appellants and the
contemporaneous GRP record, are sufficient to establish, on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that he accidentally fell
from the running passenger train. The incident, therefore, falls within the
ambit of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways
Act, 1989. The finding returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is also set
aside.
8.2 The finding of the Tribunal on the question of
dependency/relationship of the appellants with the deceased has not
been challenged before this Court. The same is accordingly affirmed.
9. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 08.05.2012,
whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 23.07.2015. 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
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7 FAO-3372-2016 (O&M)


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 2012, 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.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 23.07.2015 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.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

September 08, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.09 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document