Bhola Singh And Anr vs Union Of India

(Pronouncem
ment)
IN T
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

JAB AND HARYANA

ARH
AT CHANDIGA


FAO N

No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)

Bhola Sing
gh and another

Versus
India through its General Manag
Railway, Baroda House, New De

...Appellants
Union of I
Northern R
er,
elhi


...Respondent

ed 13.10.2026
ced 02.11.2026
d on the 03.11.2026
1 The d
2 The d
3 The d
webs
4 Whet
prono
prono
5 The d
judgm
date when the judgment was reserv
date when the judgment is pronoun
date when the judgment is uploaded
ite
ther only operative part of the judgm
ounced or whether the full judgmen
ounced
delay, if any, of the pronouncement
ment, and reasons thereof.
ment is
nt is
Full
t of full Not applicable

HARKESH MANUJA
CORAM:

Argued By





: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H
:- Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
e for
Mr. Atul Bhatia, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma,
for the respondent.
Senior Panel Counsel, UOI



SH MANUJA, J.
HARKES



By way of present appeal und
der Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tr
ribunal Act, 1987, the appella
ants, who are the parents of
deceased
Hardeep Singh, have laid chal
lenge to the judgment dated
21.12.2017
7 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigar
rh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wh
hereby their claim application
seeking co
ompensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, al
long with interest, on account
of the dea
ath of Hardeep Singh in an alle
eged untoward incident, was
dismissed.
.
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)


[2] Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants before the
Tribunal was that the deceased Hardeep Singh and his friend Akshay
Kumar were working together in a college canteen at Delhi. The
deceased was required to appear in a physical test for recruitment to
Haryana Police at Ambala on 08.08.2014. On 07.08.2014, the
deceased, accompanied by Akshay Kumar, reached New Delhi Railway
Station at about 3.30 p.m. and enquired about a train for Ambala. They
were informed that train No.12459, Amritsar Super Fast, was running
late. Upon confirming that the train had a stoppage at Ambala City,
Akshay Kumar purchased a railway ticket for the deceased for the
journey from New Delhi to Ambala City, handed it over to him and left
the station at about 4.15 p.m., as the train did not arrive till then. It was
further averred that the deceased boarded the aforesaid train in the
evening and, upon its arrival at KM 269/23-25 on line No.3 in the yard
of Ambala City Railway Station, accidentally fell from the train due to
a sudden jerk and died. The Station Master, Ambala City, issued a
memo to the Government Railway Police (GRP) and the Railway
Protection Force (RPF). The deceased was claimed to be a bona fide
passenger and it was asserted that his journey ticket was lost in the
incident.
[3] The respondent contested the claim application by filing a
written statement, inter alia, asserting that the alleged incident did not
fall within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for
short, ‘the Act’). It was pleaded that no railway ticket was recovered
during the personal search of the deceased and, therefore, he could not
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)


be treated as a bona fide passenger. The remaining averments were
denied.
[4] The learned Tribunal decided Issues No.1 and 2 against
the appellants, primarily on the ground that no journey ticket was
recovered from the deceased and that the DRM's inquiry report
indicated that he died while crossing the railway lines. It also relied
upon the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased to conclude
that he was run over by a train. Consequently, the claim application
was dismissed without adjudicating the remaining issues.
[5] Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
findings recorded by the Tribunal were contrary to the evidence on
record. It was contended that AW-2 categorically deposed about
purchasing the railway ticket and handing it over to the deceased,
whereas the non-recovery thereof could not, by itself, establish that he
was travelling without a ticket. The call letter for the Haryana Police
physical test, recovered from the deceased, also corroborated the
purpose of his journey. He further submitted that the respondent neither
examined the Guard or Loco Pilot nor produced any eyewitness to
establish that the deceased was crossing the railway lines. Reliance was
placed upon Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9
SCC 527 , Jameela v. Union of India , (2010) 12 SCC 426 and Union
of India v. Suman , ACJ 2014 P&H 45 , amongst other judgments.
[6] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported
the impugned judgment and submitted that the non-recovery of the
ticket and the findings recorded in the DRM's inquiry report
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)


sufficiently established that the deceased was neither a bona fide
passenger nor the victim of an untoward incident.
[7] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book / record, I find substance in the submission(s)
made on behalf of the appellants.
[8] In the present case, the testimony of AW-2 Akshay Kumar
assumes significance. He categorically stated that he purchased the
railway ticket for the deceased and handed it over to him at New Delhi
Railway Station. His inability to state whether the deceased actually
boarded the train is understandable, as he admittedly left the railway
station before its arrival. Similarly, AW-1, being the father of the
deceased, was not expected to have personal knowledge of the
circumstances in which his son boarded the train. The learned Tribunal,
therefore, erred in drawing an adverse inference from their inability to
depose about an event which they did not witness. The aforesaid
testimony also finds corroboration from the surrounding circumstances.
The deceased was carrying a call letter for the Haryana Police physical
test scheduled to be held at Ambala on 08.08.2014, furnishing a
plausible explanation for his journey. Further, the Station Master's
memo (Ex.AW-1/1) records that the dead body was reported by
passengers on 20.32 hours at KM 269/23-25 on line No.3. As per the
Train Signal Register, train No.12459 reached platform No.3 at 20.16
hours and departed at 20.18 hours. The proximity of time and place
lends support to the appellants' version. The non-recovery of the
railway ticket, by itself, could not have been treated as conclusive proof
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)


that the deceased was travelling without one. A ticket being a small
piece of paper could have been lost during the accident, particularly
when the body sustained multiple injuries and was dismembered. The
recovery of other personal belongings does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that the ticket must also have been recovered. In the facts of
the present case, the testimony of AW-2, duly corroborated by the
surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to discharge the initial
burden upon the appellants. The respondent led no cogent evidence to
rebut the same.
[8.1] Even the contemporaneous police proceedings lend
support to the appellants' case. The GRP, after conducting the inquest
proceedings and considering the statements of the relatives and
acquaintances of the deceased as well as the post-mortem report,
submitted its final report (Ex.AW-1/16), observing that the death
appeared to have occurred due to a fall from a railway train. On the
other hand, the DRM's inquiry report attributing the death to negligent
crossing of the railway lines was not supported by examination of any
eyewitness, Guard or Loco Pilot. The author of the report was also not
examined before the learned Tribunal. Merely because the body was
found dismembered, it could not be concluded that the deceased was
crossing the railway lines. Such injuries are equally consistent with a
situation where a passenger accidentally falls from a moving train and
is subsequently run over. In the absence of any cogent evidence
establishing that the deceased was crossing the tracks, the conclusion
drawn by the Tribunal remains conjectural. Further, none of the
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)


exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act has
been established by the respondent. In view of the cumulative effect of
the evidence, particularly the unrebutted testimony of AW-2, the call
letter recovered from the deceased, the contemporaneous police
proceedings and the proximity between the departure of the train and
discovery of the body, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death occurred in an
untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with
Section 124-A of the Act. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on
Issues No.1 and 2 are accordingly set aside and the same are decided in
favour of the appellants.
[9] Moreover, the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation. Section 124-A fastens liability upon the railway
administration in the event of death or injury to a passenger in an
untoward incident, irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect or default
on its part, subject to the exceptions contained therein. An accidental
falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers is expressly
covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) and Jameela (supra)
has emphasised the beneficial nature of the statutory scheme.
[10] As regards Issue No.3, the appellants are the parents of the
deceased. Their relationship with the deceased stands established from
the evidence led before the Tribunal and has not been rebutted by the
respondent. They are, therefore, entitled to claim compensation in
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Coming to the
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)


quantum, the accident took place on 07.08.2014, whereas the order of
the learned Tribunal was passed on 21.12.2017. In view of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, 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 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 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.”
DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-
FAO No. 4197 of 2018 (O&M)



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 21.12.2017 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.
[12] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand(s) disposed off.

November 02, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
‘dk kamra’
JUDGE

Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes

DINESH KUMAR
2026.11.03 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document