Akabal Hussain And Another vs Union Of India And Another

1

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)

AKABAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER …Appe llants
Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER …Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 15.10.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 13.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 13.11.2026
website
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 Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued by: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate and
Ms. Ankita Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI
for respondent No.1.

Service qua respondent No.2 stands disposed with
fide order dated 25.09.2019.


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 18.03.2019
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition seeking compensation on account of
death of Bhagelu son of Amire in an alleged untoward incident dated 28.04.2015 at
Ambala Cantt Railway Station, was dismissed. The learned Tribunal also imposed
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
special costs of Rs.50,000/- upon the claimants and directed an enquiry against the
Divisional Railway Manager (DRM).
2. Briefly stating, the deceased, a resident of District Gonda, Uttar
Pradesh, was returning from Ludhiana on 28.04.2015 by Train No.14674, Shaheed
Express, along with his co-villager Uma Shankar, his wife Kanchan Lata and their
daughter, on the strength of a joint Tatkal ticket bearing No.02568528, booked for
four passengers in Coach SE-1. On account of heavy rush, they initially boarded
Coach S-1. At Ambala Cantt Railway Station, while the deceased was attempting
to board Coach SE-1, he fell on Platform No.1 and died on the spot.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent-Railways on the
ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no ticket was recovered
from his person and the ticket produced by the claimants mentioned the name of
'Bhaglu', aged 27 years. It was further pleaded that the deceased died due to his
own negligence while changing coaches.
4. The learned Tribunal decided Issues No.1 and 2 against the claimants,
primarily observing that the ticket was planted in connivance with the police
officials. It also drew an adverse inference from the fact that the passengers
mentioned in the ticket belonged to a Hindu family, whereas the claimants were
Muslims, and consequently dismissed the claim petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal were based on conjectures and surmises,
particularly when AW-2 Uma Shankar, one of the passengers named in the ticket,
appeared and supported the claimants' version. It was further submitted that the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
ticket was duly verified by the Railway authorities themselves and the
contemporaneous GRP proceedings and medical evidence also corroborated the
occurrence.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways, supported
the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper-book.
8. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger. In this regard, AW-2 Uma
Shankar categorically deposed that the deceased was travelling with them on the
joint ticket and that the same was handed over to the police after the incident. His
testimony finds corroboration from the GRP proceedings, wherein the statements
of Uma Shankar, Kanchan Lata and the widow of the deceased, Chhapila, were
recorded to the effect that the deceased travelled with them on the said ticket in
Coach SE-1. Significantly, the ticket was produced before the police during the
GRP proceedings on 29.09.2015, much prior to the institution of the claim petition.
Further, the Railway's own inquiry report dated 12.07.2018 records that the
Railway Information System Centre verified ticket No.02568528 and confirmed its
validity for four passengers travelling from Ludhiana to Gonda. The report also
acknowledges that the deceased was a reserved passenger of Coach SE-1.
8.1 In these circumstances, neither the mere non-recovery of the ticket
from the deceased nor the discrepancy in the spelling of his name as 'Bhagelu' and
'Bhaglu' can be made the basis for rejecting the claim. The testimony of AW-2, the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
contemporaneous police record and the Railway's own verification sufficiently
establish the deceased's journey. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal regarding
alleged connivance, particularly on the basis of the religious identity of the
passengers, is wholly irrelevant and unsustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , has also held that non-recovery
of a railway ticket from the deceased's body, by itself, is not sufficient to reject a
claim. Accordingly, the deceased is held to have been a bona fide passenger.
9. Coming to the question of untoward incident, the GRP proceedings
record that the deceased alighted from Shaheed Express and was attempting to
board another coach when he fell on the platform. The said version is supported by
AW-2 and the Railway's own inquiry report. Further, the postmortem report
revealed subdural haematoma, while the final medical opinion dated 02.11.2015
attributed the death to shock and haemorrhage resulting from head injury,
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The initial observation
regarding the possibility of an old ailment, recorded before completion of the
medical examination, cannot prevail over the final medical opinion. There is no
evidence to establish that the deceased died on account of any natural ailment.
Thus, the material available on record sufficiently establishes that the deceased
died due to an accidental fall while attempting to board the train.
9.1 Further, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-Railways
that the deceased was negligent in changing coaches is also devoid of merit.
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, fastens liability upon the Railways
irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect or default, subject to the exceptions
contained in its proviso. Mere negligence on the part of a passenger does not fall
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
within the said exceptions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 , and Jameela v. Union of India ,
(2010) 12 SCC 443 , has reiterated the beneficial nature of the aforesaid provision.
Accordingly, the deceased's death is held to have occurred in an untoward incident
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, attracting the liability of the
respondent-Railways under Section 124-A thereof. The findings recorded by the
Tribunal on Issues No.1 and 2 are, therefore, set aside.
10. As regards issue No. 3 the appellants, being sons of the deceased, fall
within the definition of dependants under Section 123(b) of the Act. The GRP
record also reflects that the deceased was survived by his widow and a married
daughter. Their respective entitlements shall be considered in accordance with law
at the stage of disbursement. Coming to the quantum, the accident took place on
28.05.2015, whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 18.03.2019.
In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi,
(supra), and subsequently reiterated in Union of India v. Radha Yadav , (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 2015, 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:
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
“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 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.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
18.03.2019 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
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7

FAO No.2453 of 2019 (O&M)
payable from the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of actual
realization.
12. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 13, 2026 JUDGE
Atik

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.13 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document