Amarjit Singh vs Union Of India

1





IN TH
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA
AB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGAR

RH

FAO-3912-2022
2

1 The date wh
en the judgment was reserved
28.09.2026
2 The date wh
en the judgment is pronounced
13.11.2026
3 The date wh
en the judgment is uploaded on
n the website 13.11.2026
4 Whether only
or whether th
5 The delay, i
and reasons

AMARJIT SING
y operative part of the judgmen
he full judgment is pronounced
t is pronounced Full
f any, of the pronouncement o
thereof.
of full judgment Not
applicable
GH
...Appellant
Vs.
UNION OF IND
DIA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON
N’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKE
SH MANUJA
Present: Mr. U

Mr. Ra
for the

Upender Prasher, Advocate fo
or the appellant.
amesh Chand Sharma, Advoc
e respondent –UOI.
cate

HARKESH MA

1. By

NUJA, J.
way of the present appeal f
filed under Section 23 of the
e
Railway Claims
s Tribunal Act, 1987 (for sho
ort, 'the 1987 Act'), challenge
e
has been laid
to the judgment/order dated
d 19.05.2022 passed by the
e
Railway Claims
s Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
h, Chandigarh (for short, 'the
e
Tribunal'), whe
ereby the claim petition
seeking compensation of
f
Rs.10,00,000/-
on account of the death of
Gurvinder Singh, filed under
r
Section 16 of th
he 1987 Act read with Sectio
on 124-A of the Railways Act,

1989 (for short,
'the 1989 Act'), was dismisse
ed.
2. Brie
efly stating, the case set up
p by the claimants was that
t
Gurvinder Sing
h, aged about 58 years, whi
le travelling from Amritsar to
o
Jalandhar on 1
1.02.2019, accidentally fell fro
om the running train between
n
Dhilwan and H
Hamira railway stations and
sustained fatal injuries. His
s
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

2

dead body was noticed in the bushes adjoining the railway track on
13.02.2019, whereafter post-mortem examination was conducted on
14.02.2019 at Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. It was pleaded that the journey
ticket was lost in the incident. The claim petition was initially instituted by
Smt. Gursharan Kaur, wife of the deceased, and Amarjit Singh, his son.
During its pendency, Smt. Gursharan Kaur expired on 12.10.2020 and
her name was deleted from the array of parties. Consequently, the
appellant, being the son of the deceased, remained the surviving
applicant.
3. The claim was contested by the respondent-Union of India. It was
pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no journey
ticket was recovered from his person. The respondent further disputed
the occurrence of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section
123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. It was also contended
that the recovery of the dead body after about two days, the absence of
an eyewitness and the alleged health problems of the deceased
rendered the claim doubtful.
4. The learned Tribunal framed issues regarding the deceased being
a bona fide passenger, the occurrence of an untoward incident, the
status of the claimants as dependants and the relief. Upon consideration
of the evidence, the Tribunal decided the first two issues against the
claimants and dismissed the claim petition, primarily on the grounds that
no journey ticket was recovered, the appellant's version regarding the
purchase of the ticket was an afterthought, no eyewitness witnessed the
occurrence, the dead body remained undiscovered for about two days
and the injuries were allegedly inconsistent with a fall from a running
train. The issue concerning dependency was held to be redundant.
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

3

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings
recorded by the Tribunal were based on conjectures and surmises and
were contrary to the material available on record. It was submitted that
the claim petition specifically pleaded the loss of the journey ticket in the
incident, while the statements of the appellant and his mother, recorded
during the railway police proceedings, consistently supported the factum
of purchase of the ticket. The absence of the ticket, therefore, could not
have been treated as conclusive against the claimants. Learned counsel
further submitted that the medical evidence did not contradict the
pleaded occurrence and that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi ,
2019 (3) SCC 572 . It was also contended that the delay in completion of
the railway enquiry could not be used to the prejudice of the claimants.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that, in the absence of a journey ticket
or an eyewitness, the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was
a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted on account of an
untoward incident.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book.
8. The controversy in the present appeal essentially revolves around
two questions: whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and
whether his death resulted from an untoward incident within the meaning
of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. Section
124-A of the 1989 Act provides for compensation in respect of an
untoward incident, irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect or default on
the part of the railway administration, subject to the statutory exceptions.
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

4

Section 123(c)(2) includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a
train carrying passengers within the expression 'untoward incident'.
9. The issue regarding the non-recovery of a journey ticket is no
longer res integra . In Rina Devi (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that mere non-recovery of a ticket from the person of the deceased does
not, by itself, negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The
initial burden rests upon the claimant, which may be discharged by
placing the relevant facts on record. Once such burden is discharged, the
onus shifts to the Railways, and the matter is required to be decided on
the basis of the evidence and attending circumstances. The beneficial
object of the legislation also stands recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC
527 . In the present case, the appellant appeared as AW-1 and stated
that he accompanied his father to Amritsar railway station on 11.02.2019,
purchased a journey ticket for approximately Rs.40-45/- and handed it
over to him before his departure for Jalandhar. The learned Tribunal
discarded this testimony on the ground that the particulars regarding the
purchase of the ticket was not mentioned in the claim petition. The
aforesaid reasoning cannot be sustained. The claim petition specifically
pleaded that the journey ticket was lost in the incident. The statement of
AW-1 merely elaborated upon the circumstances in which the ticket was
purchased and handed over to the deceased. Such particulars could
legitimately be furnished by way of evidence. The absence of a detailed
narration in the pleadings could not, in the facts of the present case, be
treated as sufficient to discard the appellant's testimony altogether.
9.1 More importantly, the appellant's version finds corroboration
from the statements recorded during the railway police enquiry. The
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

5

statements of the appellant and his mother, Smt. Gursharan Kaur,
recorded by the Railway Protection Force on 23.09.2019, specifically
refer to the purchase of the ticket at Amritsar railway station and its
delivery to the deceased. The statements recorded during the inquest
proceedings on 13.02.2019 also pertain to the journey undertaken by the
deceased. These material circumstances were not appropriately
considered by the learned Tribunal. The reliance placed upon
Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India , FAO No.507 of 2011 , decided on
08.01.2014 by the Delhi High Court, is also misplaced in the facts of the
present case, as the appellant himself was before the Tribunal and
entered the witness box in support of the claim. The mere fact that the
Aadhaar card and driving licence of the deceased were recovered,
whereas the journey ticket was not, could not have been made the basis
for rejecting the claim. A journey ticket is a small piece of paper and its
loss during an accidental fall from a moving train cannot be ruled out.
The deceased sustained extensive injuries and his body was found in
bushes adjoining the railway track. In such circumstances, the non-
recovery of the ticket is not sufficient to displace the otherwise consistent
version of the appellant. Once the appellant discharged the initial burden
by furnishing his testimony and the supporting circumstances, the onus
shifted to the Railways. However, no Ticket Examiner, booking clerk or
other witness was examined to establish that the deceased did not
purchase a ticket. The reports relied upon by the respondent primarily
refer to the absence of a ticket and an eyewitness. Neither circumstance,
in itself, is conclusive against the claimants.
9.2 The other circumstances relied upon by the Tribunal also fail to
discredit the claim. The deceased was travelling on the Amritsar-
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

6

Jalandhar route and his dead body was found between Dhilwan and
Hamira railway stations on the same route. His identity was established
through the Aadhaar card and driving licence recovered from his person.
The respondent's plea that the deceased was suffering from a health
problem was not substantiated by any evidence. There is, admittedly,
some variation regarding the precise time of departure from Amritsar.
However, both versions place the journey in the evening of 11.02.2019.
The appellant consistently stated that he left his father at the railway
station and did not witness the actual boarding of the train. The variation
in the approximate time, in the absence of any other material
contradiction, is not sufficient to render the entire claim doubtful.
10. The next question is whether the death of the deceased resulted
from an untoward incident. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim, inter
alia, on the ground that there was a mismatch between the time of the
alleged journey and the recovery of the dead body. However, the post-
mortem examination commenced at 11.45 a.m. on 14.02.2019, and the
medical record noted that the body was in the initial stage of
decomposition, with foul smell and maggots. The railway enquiry report
also referred to the time since death as approximately three to five days.
The aforesaid material does not contradict the claimants' version. Rather,
the estimated time since death is broadly consistent with the deceased
having undertaken the journey on the evening of 11.02.2019. The date of
recovery of the dead body, i.e. 13.02.2019, could not have been treated
as the date of death without considering the medical evidence. The
inference drawn by the Tribunal that the dead body could not have
remained unnoticed because several trains passed the location every
day is equally unsustainable. There was no evidence to establish that the
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

7

spot where the body was lying in the bushes was visible from the running
trains or that the concerned railway personnel actually noticed it. The
mere number of trains passing through the section could not, by itself,
establish that the body must necessarily have been seen earlier.
Similarly, the absence of a missing-person report does not constitute a
circumstance sufficient to reject the claim. The deceased was an adult
who left for Jalandhar to visit his relatives. The family was informed of his
death by the railway police on 13.02.2019, whereafter the proceedings
for identification and post-mortem were undertaken. In these
circumstances, no adverse inference could legitimately be drawn merely
because a missing-person report was not lodged earlier.
10.1 Further, the conclusion of the Tribunal regarding the nature of
injuries is also not supported by any medical opinion on record. The post-
mortem report records extensive injuries to the face and skull, fractures
of the ribs and contusions of the brain. It also refers to the presence of
black greasy material, vegetative material, sand and small pieces of
gravel on the face. The police information recorded in the post-mortem
report attributes the death to a fall from a running train. The learned
Tribunal, in the absence of any supporting medical evidence, could not
have substituted its own conjecture that the deceased might have been
struck by some other fast-moving object. No material was produced to
establish any alternative cause of death. The nature and location of the
injuries, considered along with the place where the dead body was found
and the other attending circumstances, support the claimants' version of
an accidental fall from a running train. Moreover, the respondent has also
failed to establish any circumstance falling within the exceptions to
Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. The railway enquiry reports, which
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

8

substantially relied upon the non-recovery of the ticket and the absence
of an eyewitness, do not displace the evidence led by the appellant. The
delay in completion of the enquiry, which culminated in the report
submitted in September 2019 and its subsequent endorsement in
February 2020, also cannot be used to draw an adverse inference
against the claimant.
10.2 Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, the
preponderance of probabilities clearly favours the claimants. The
deceased left Amritsar for Jalandhar on the evening of 11.02.2019; his
dead body was found on the same railway route; the medical evidence is
broadly consistent with the pleaded time of death; and the respondent
failed to establish any credible alternative explanation. Accordingly, it is
held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death
resulted from the accidental falling from a train carrying passengers,
constituting an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2)
read with Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. The findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal on issues Nos.1 and 2 are, therefore, set aside.
11. As regards the entitlement to compensation, the claim petition
was instituted by the wife and son of the deceased. The wife expired
during the pendency of the proceedings, leaving the appellant as the
surviving applicant. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove and the
material available on record, no useful purpose would be served by
remanding the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication of the issue
regarding dependency. The appellant, being the son of the deceased and
the surviving claimant, is entitled to receive the compensation payable in
the present proceedings. The prescribed compensation for death on the
date of the incident was Rs.8,00,000/-, and the appellant is entitled to the
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

9

said amount, notwithstanding that the claim petition sought
Rs.10,00,000/-. In Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572) ,
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 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.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated
11.01.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigarh, is set aside. The claim application is allowed and the
appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
till realisation. The respondent shall deposit/pay the aforesaid amount
within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter disburse the amount to
the dependant in accordance with law. In case the respondent fail to
deposit the amount within the aforesaid period of two months, it shall be
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

10

liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount payable from the
expiry of the said period of two months till the date of actual realization.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.


13.11.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No



















TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document