Shalo Devi & Ors vs Union Of India

1

18 (O&M)

FAO NO.1156 of 201
IN T
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA
ARH
AT CHANDIGA



SHALO DEVI A
Vs
UNION OF IND

1 The date
2 The date
3 The date
website
4 Whether
pronounc
pronounc
5 The delay
judgment

CORAM: HON
FAO No.1
1156 of 2018 (O&M)
…Appe llants
AND ORS.
DIA
…Respondent
when the judgment was reserv
when the judgment is pronoun
when the judgment is uploaded
ved 06.08.2026
nced 02.09.2026
d on the 02.09.2026
only operative part of the judg
ced or whether the full judgme
ced
y, if any, of the pronouncement
gment is
Full
nt is
t of full Not applicable
t, and reasons thereof.
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKES
SH MANUJA
Present: Mr
for

Mr
Ms
for


HARKESH MA
. Ujval Mittal, Advocate
the appellants.
. Anil Chawla, Advocate with
. Monica Chawla, Advocate
the respondent-UOI.

ANUJA, J.

1. By w
way of present appeal, challeng
e has been laid to the order da
ated
30.10.2017 pass
sed by the learned Railway Claim
ms Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (
(for
short, ‘the Tribu
unal’), whereby the claim appli
ication preferred by the appella
ants
seeking compen
nsation on account of death o
of Shambhu Roy in an untow
ward
railway incident
t, came to be dismissed.
2. Bri
efly stating, the case of the app
pellants is that on 17.01.2015,
the
deceased, along
g with his brother-in-law Rajka
ant Roy and one Nandan, reach
hed
Phillaur Railway
y Station with a view to travel
l to Amritsar. Nandan purchase
ed a
computerized tic
cket for two persons from Philla
aur to Amritsar and handed over
the
same to the dec
ceased. While the deceased was
boarding Tata Mori Express fr
rom
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2

18 (O&M)

FAO NO.1156 of 201
Platform No.2, t
the train started moving, as a res
sult whereof he lost his balance,
fell
from the train a
and was dragged underneath it,
resulting in his death at the sp
pot.
Nandan immedi
iately informed the Station Maste
er, who issued a memo to the GR
RP.
The inquest p
proceedings were thereafter c
conducted and the post-mort
tem
examination was
s carried out.
3. The
e Tribunal, however, dismissed t
the claim principally on the grou
und
that no journey
y ticket was recovered from
the person of the deceased a
and,
therefore, his sta
atus as a bona fide passenger wa
s not established. The Tribunal a
also
disbelieved the
testimony of AW-2 Nandan and
d relied upon certain discrepanc
cies
in the statemen
nts recorded during the subsequ
uent railway inquiry. The findi
ngs
recorded by th
he Tribunal, as noticed from
m the impugned order, proc
eed
substantially on
n the premise that absence of
f a ticket from the person of
the
deceased conclu
usively negatives his status as a b
bona fide passenger.
4. Hea
ard learned counsel for the partie
es and perused the paper-book.
5. The
e issue regarding non-recovery o
of a journey ticket from the per
son
assenger is no longer res integra
a . In Union of India v. Rina De
of a deceased pa
evi ,
(2019) 3 SCC 5
572 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t held that mere absence of a tic
cket
from the injured
d/deceased would not, by itself
f, negative the claim that he wa
as a
bona fide passe
enger. The initial burden can b
be discharged by the claimant
by
placing on reco
ord an affidavit or other relevan
nt material, whereafter the burd
den
shifts upon the
Railways to establish otherwise
e. The aforesaid principle has b
een
Kamukayi and others v. Union
reiterated by th
e Hon’ble Supreme Court in K
n of
India and other
rs , Civil Appeal No.3799 of 202
23 , decided on 16.05.2023 , where
ein,
in somewhat sim
milar circumstances, the dismiss
al of a railway compensation cla
aim
merely on accou
unt of non-recovery of the journ
ney ticket was set aside. The Co
ourt
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

18 (O&M)

FAO NO.1156 of 201
held that once th
he claimant discharges the initia
al burden regarding possession o
of a
valid ticket, the
onus shifts upon the Railway A
Administration and mere absence
e of
the ticket from t
the body cannot constitute suffici
ient basis to reject the claim.
5.1 In
n the present case, the appellan
nts examined AW-2 Nandan, w
who
categorically sta
ated that he purchased two ticke
ets for the journey from Phillaur
r to
Amritsar and ha
anded over the same to the dece
eased before boarding the train.
His
statement finds
material corroboration from the
e contemporaneous statement of
the
then Booking C
Clerk, Rajni Bala, recorded duri
ing the GRP proceedings, wher
rein
purchase of tick
ket No.F03428685 from Phillaur
r to Amritsar at about 15:55 ho
ours
was confirmed.
The fact that the said ticket wa
as not subsequently recovered fr
rom
the body of the d
deceased cannot, in the facts and
d circumstances of the present ca
ase,
be treated as con
nclusive proof that no ticket wa
as purchased. The Tribunal also
fell
into error in plac
cing undue reliance upon the sub
bsequent statement recorded dur
ring
the railway inq
quiry, particularly when the co
ontemporaneous material was
not
properly reconc
ciled with the same. The Tri
ibunal itself noticed that Nand
dan
deposed regardi
ing purchase of the ticket and
d the circumstances in which
the
deceased fell fr
om the train. Merely because c
certain discrepancies existed in
the
statements of t
the witnesses, the entire claim
m could not have been discard
ded,
particularly wh
en the surrounding circumstan
nces and official railway reco
ords
supported the oc
ccurrence.
6. Eve
en otherwise, the occurrence of t
the railway incident is substantia
ally
borne out from
the official record. The Station
Master issued a memo to the G
GRP
immediately up
pon receiving information reg
garding the occurrence; the G
GRP
reached the spo
ot, conducted the inquest proc
ceedings and the dead body w
was
subjected to p
ost-mortem examination. The
Tribunal itself noticed that
the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4

18 (O&M)

FAO NO.1156 of 201
deceased was fo
ound lying between the platform
m and the railway track and that
the
GRP proceeding
gs was conducted. The mere fact
t that the Guard did not witness
the
deceased falling
g from the train or that no alarm
chain pulling was recorded cann
not,
by itself, dispr
ove the occurrence. The expr
ression ‘untoward incident’ un
nder
Section 123(c)(2
2) of the Railways Act, 1989 spe
ecifically includes accidental fall
ling
of a passenger
from a train carrying passeng
gers. Once the material on rec
cord
establishes that
the deceased died on account
of injuries sustained after fall
ling
from the train in
n the course of his journey, the
e incident falls within the statut
tory
definition.
7. Fur
rthermore, the reasoning adopt
ted by the Tribunal regarding
the
deceased and hi
is companions allegedly having
g travelled in the reverse direct
tion
towards Amrits
sar is also based on conjecture
es. The Tribunal was required
d to
examine the evi
idence on record and not to subs
stitute its own assessment as to
the
prudence or o
therwise of the travel plan
adopted by the deceased. Su
uch
circumstances, i
in any event, cannot override t
the contemporaneous document
tary
evidence and th
he testimony of the witness wh
ho purchased the ticket. It is a
also
settled that liab
bility under Section 124-A of
the Railways Act is one of st
trict
liability and the
Railway Administration cannot
escape its statutory liability mer
rely
by alleging negl
ligence on the part of the decea
ased, unless the case is specifica
ally
brought within o
one of the exceptions contained
in the proviso to Section 124-A
. In
the present case
e, the Tribunal did not record an
ny finding bringing the occurre
nce
within any such
statutory exception.
8. Con
nsequently, this Court is of the
e considered view that the findin
ngs
recorded by the
e Tribunal on Issues No.1 and
d 2 are contrary to the evide
nce
available on rec
ord and the settled legal position
n. The deceased has to be treated
d as
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5

18 (O&M)

FAO NO.1156 of 201
a bona fide pas
ssenger and his death as having
g occurred in an untoward incid
dent
within the mean
ning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 12
24-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
9. As
regards the quantum, the acc
cident took place on 17.01.20
015,
whereas the orde
er of the learned Tribunal was pa
assed on 30.10.2017. In view of
the
principles laid d
down by the Hon’ble Supreme
e Court in Rina Devi (supra) a
and
subsequently rei
iterated in Radha Yadav v. Unio
on of India , (2019) 3 SCC 410 ,
the
compensation a
applicable on the date of the a
accident, together with reasona
able
interest thereon,
, is to be compared with the amo
ount of compensation prescribed
d on
the date of the
award, and the higher of the tw
wo is to be awarded. In the pres
sent
case, the accide
ent having occurred in the yea
ar 2015, the appellants would
be
entitled to comp
pensation of Rs.4,00,000/- appl
licable at the relevant time, alo
ong
with interest the
ereon, or the enhanced prescrib
bed compensation of Rs.8,00,00
00/-
applicable on th
e date of the award, whichever is
s higher.
10. Acc
cordingly, the present appeal is a
allowed. The impugned order da
ated
30.10.2017 pass
sed by the learned Railway Claim
ms Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
h, is
set aside. The ap
ppellants shall be entitled to com
mpensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alo
ong
with simple int
terest @ 9% per annum from
m the date of filing of the cla
aim
application till
realization, or Rs.8,00,000/-, w
whichever is higher , in terms of
f the
principles laid d
down in Rina Devi (supra) and R
Radha Yadav (supra) . The Railw
way
Administration
shall deposit the amount so
determined, along with accru
ued
interest, before t
the learned Tribunal within a pe
eriod of three months from the d
date
of receipt of a ce
ertified copy of this judgment. T
The learned Tribunal shall therea
fter
disburse the amo
ount amongst the eligible depend
dants-appellants in accordance w
with
law. In case the
respondents fail to deposit the
amount within the aforesaid per
riod
of three months
s, they shall be liable to pay in
nterest @ 12% per annum on
the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6

18 (O&M)

FAO NO.1156 of 201
amount payable
e from the expiry of the said per
riod of three months till the date
e of
actual realization
n.
11. Pen
nding miscellaneous application(
(s), if any, shall also stand dispo
sed
of.

(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE

September 02,
Atik

2026

ether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
ether reportable Yes/No
Whe
Whe
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document