Bala vs Union Of India

1 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 04.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.09.2026
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

BALA …Appellant
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: None for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent/UOI.


HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgment dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the claim application filed by the
appellant seeking compensation on account of death of her son, namely,
Rakesh, in an untoward railway incident dated 03.07.2011, was
dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the appellant is that on 03.07.2011,
Rakesh, son of Kartar Singh, was travelling from Jind towards
Bahadurgarh by passenger train No. 2DJJ, having a valid railway ticket
bearing No.37827565. On account of heavy rush and sudden jerk, he fell
down from the moving train and sustained fatal injuries. The occurrence
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


was duly reported to the Railway authorities and DD No.20 dated
03.07.2011 was recorded by GRP, Rohtak. The post-mortem
examination was also conducted. During personal search of the
deceased, railway ticket No.37827565 was recovered and, as pleaded by
the appellant, the same was found to be genuine.
3. The claim application, however, came to be dismissed by the
learned Tribunal primarily on the ground that the deceased was not
proved to be a bona fide passenger and that, as per the DRM's enquiry
report and the statement of RW-1, he allegedly attempted to board the
moving train from the off-side. The Tribunal further declined the claim on
the ground that the father of the deceased was not impleaded and,
therefore, the appellant could not be treated as the sole dependent.
4. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to address
arguments. However, keeping in view the fact that the appeal is directed
against dismissal of a claim for compensation arising out of an untoward
railway incident, this Court has examined the grounds of appeal as well
as the material available on record and heard learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-Railways.
5. A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that the appellant
assailed the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal primarily on the
issues of the deceased being a bona fide passenger and the nature of
the incident. It has been specifically pleaded that railway ticket bearing
No.37827565 was recovered from the person of the deceased and was
found to be genuine; that there was no eye-witness to establish that the
deceased was attempting to board the moving train from the off-side; and
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


that the version relied upon by the learned Tribunal was based upon
information allegedly received by the Guard from other passengers. The
appellant also relied upon the contemporaneous police and medical
record to contend that the deceased died as a result of injuries caused in
connection with the train.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways, on the
other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal were based upon the DRM's
enquiry report and the statement of the Guard and, therefore, called for
no interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-UOI and
perused the paper-book of the case.
8. The first question which requires consideration is as to whether
the deceased was a bonafide passenger. In this regard, the learned
Tribunal proceeded on an assumption that the railway ticket recovered
from the deceased was subsequently planted. Such conclusion, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is based on conjectures rather than any
cogent evidence. The material placed on record shows recovery of ticket
No.37827565 from the person of the deceased. Mere fact that the ticket
was for two adults, or that the appellant was unable to furnish particulars
of the other passenger, could not be a legitimate basis to discard the
ticket altogether. The deceased was travelling alone, so far as the
knowledge and information to his family members were concerned, and
the absence of a co-passenger's particulars in the claim application
therefore cannot, by itself, render the recovered ticket fabricated.
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


8.1 The issue stands squarely covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC
572 , wherein the scope of Sections 123(b), 123(c) and 124-A of the
Railways Act was examined in detail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the initial burden upon the claimant to establish that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger can be discharged by placing material such
as an affidavit, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways. It was
further held that mere absence of a ticket is not, by itself, sufficient to
negative the claim of bona fide passenger. In the present case, the
situation is even stronger in favour of the appellant, since a railway ticket
was admittedly recovered from the deceased. There is no cogent
material on record to establish that the same was subsequently planted
or fabricated. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard, therefore, cannot
be sustained.
9. The second question is whether the death of Rakesh falls within
the expression "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) read with
Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The case of the appellant is that the
deceased fell from the moving train on account of heavy rush and a
sudden jerk. The Railway Administration, on the other hand, relies upon
the DRM's enquiry report and the affidavit of RW-1, the Guard, to
contend that the deceased was trying to board the moving train from the
off-side. Significantly, however, there is no eye-witness to the actual
occurrence. The Guard did not witness the deceased boarding the train
from the off-side. His version regarding the manner in which the
deceased allegedly came to be there was based upon what he was
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


informed by passengers. The appeal grounds correctly point out that
neither the Guard nor the co-pilot witnessed the actual incident.
9.1 Moreover, the Station Master's message records that one person
fell on Platform No.4 after departure of train No.54036 and was run over,
whereas the claim relates to passenger train No.2DJJ. The discrepancy
in the railway record itself makes it unsafe to draw the extreme
conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was deliberately
attempting to board the train from the off-side. Even otherwise, the
finding of the Tribunal cannot survive in view of the law subsequently
authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi
(supra) . The Supreme Court considered the precise question whether
negligence on the part of a passenger while boarding or de-boarding a
train would amount to "self-inflicted injury". It held that the concept of self-
inflicted injury requires something more than mere negligence and that
the principle of contributory negligence cannot be imported into a
statutory scheme based upon no-fault liability. The Court consequently
held that death or injury suffered in the course of boarding or de-boarding
a train constitutes an "untoward incident" and cannot be denied merely
on the ground of negligence of the victim.
9.2 Thus, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
deceased attempted to board the moving train from the off-side, the
same, in the absence of proof of an intentional act falling within the
statutory exception, would not by itself absolve the Railways of their
statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Act. The subsequent
pronouncement in Rina Devi (supra), is also consistent with the earlier
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela v. Union
of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 , wherein the beneficial and strict-liability
character of the statutory scheme was recognised. The law does not
permit the Railway Administration to avoid liability merely by attributing
negligence to the deceased.
10. Furthermore, the post-mortem report and the contemporaneous
railway/police record, as referred to in the grounds of appeal, support the
fact that the deceased died on account of injuries caused in connection
with the train/railway track. The medical opinion also records that the
possibility of the injuries having been caused by a heavy vehicle such as
a train could not be ruled out. The approach adopted by the learned
Tribunal, therefore, amounts to placing a burden upon the claimant to
establish the precise manner in which the accident occurred, almost as if
the proceedings were a criminal trial. Such an approach is inconsistent
with the beneficial object of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act. The
proceedings under Section 124-A are governed by the principle of
preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
11. As regards the finding on dependency, the same is also legally
unsustainable. The appellant is admittedly the mother of the deceased
and falls within the category of "parent" contemplated under Section
123(b) of the Railways Act. The mere fact that the father of the deceased
was not impleaded as a claimant could not result in dismissal of the
entire claim. At the highest, if any other person was also found entitled
under Section 123(b), the compensation could be appropriately
apportioned amongst the eligible dependents. The right of the appellant,
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


as the mother of the deceased, could not be defeated on this technical
ground.
12. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on
Issues No.1 to 3 are set aside. The material on record establishes, on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that Rakesh was a bona
fide passenger and that his death occurred in an untoward incident
covered by Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, 1989. The appellant, being his mother, is entitled to seek
compensation under the Act.
13. As regards the quantum of compensation, the accident in
question took place on 03.07.2011, when the amount prescribed under
the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990, in case of death, was Rs.4,00,000/-. The said amount came to be
enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- with effect from 01.01.2017. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) held that the liability accrues on the
date of accident and the compensation applicable on that date, together
with reasonable interest, is to be worked out. If the amount so calculated
is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of award, the claimant
would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. The said principle
was reiterated and explained in Union of India v. Radha Yadav , (2019)
3 SCC 410 , wherein it was specifically held that, in respect of an accident
which occurred prior to the amendment, the basic figure would be
Rs.4,00,000/- and reasonable interest would be calculated thereon, and if
the resultant figure exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, the claimant would be entitled
to the amount in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-.
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8 FAO-6377-2018 (O&M)


13.1 Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellant 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 respondent-Railways
shall deposit the entire amount, 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. Upon deposit, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to thep appellant 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 said period of three
months till the date of actual realization.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

September 01, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document