Madan Lal And Anr vs Union Of India

1

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)

MADAN LAL AND ANR. …Appe llants
Vs
UNION OF INDIA …Respondent

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 18.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.10.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 31.10.2026
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. Atul Bhatia, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Ritik Mohindroo, Advocate with
Ms. Ruchita Garg, Advocate
for the respondent-UOI.


HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Tribunal Act”), the appellants, who are the
parents of deceased Harjeet Singh @ Dimpy, have laid challenge to the judgment
dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigarh (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby their claim application seeking
compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a railway accident on
09.06.2013 was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that the deceased,
aged about 24/25 years, was running a barber's shop in village Ledi, Police Station
Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar. On 09.06.2013, he informed his parents that
he was going to Ambala Cantt. to purchase certain articles and would thereafter
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
visit his maternal uncle, Rajinder Singh, at Shahabad. Accordingly, he reached
Railway Station Jagadhri, purchased a railway ticket for Ambala Cantt. and
boarded a passenger train. When the train was passing between Railway Stations
Barara and Mustafabad, it allegedly gave a sudden jerk, as a result of which the
deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. It was pleaded that the railway
ticket was lost in the incident. The deceased was survived by his parents and his
wife, Pooja, who subsequently remarried on 07.07.2014.
3. The respondent-Railways contested the claim application, inter alia,
on the ground that there was no evidence to establish that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger or that his death occurred in an untoward incident. It was pointed
out that although a purse, a mobile phone and motorcycle keys were recovered
from the person of the deceased, no railway ticket was found. It was further
pleaded that the nature of injuries was inconsistent with a fall from a moving train
and suggested that the deceased was run over while crossing the railway track. An
objection regarding non-joinder of the deceased's wife was also raised.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues with regard
to the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the occurrence of an untoward
incident, the status of the appellants as dependants of the deceased and the relief to
which they were entitled.
5. While deciding Issues No. 1 and 2 against the appellants, the learned
Tribunal primarily relied upon the non-recovery of the railway ticket, the
departmental inquiry report and the nature of the injuries sustained by the
deceased. It concluded that the injuries were more consistent with the deceased
having been run over while crossing the railway track than with a fall from a
moving train. Issue No. 3, relating to the status of the appellants as dependants,
was left undecided in view of the findings on the aforesaid issues.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings
recorded by the Tribunal were based on conjectures and surmises and that the
material evidence available on record was not properly appreciated. It was
submitted that the testimony of AW-1, duly corroborated by the contemporaneous
police record, established that the deceased left home for Ambala Cantt. and
boarded a passenger train after purchasing a ticket. The non-recovery of the ticket,
particularly when the body was found in a mutilated condition and the shirt of the
deceased was missing, could not have been treated as conclusive proof that he was
travelling without a ticket. It was further contended that the respondent led no
evidence to establish that the deceased was crossing the railway tracks ; was
intoxicated and had committed any criminal act or that his death fell within any of
the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The finding
that the injuries could not have resulted from a fall from a moving train is also
stated to be unsupported by any medical evidence. Reliance has been placed upon
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 ; Union of
India v. Suman , 2014 ACJ 45 (P&H) ; Union of India v. Balak Ram Joshi , 2013
ACJ 727 (All.) ; Maniben Paljibhai Parmar v. Union of India , 2005 (2) RCR
(Civil) 255 (Bom.) ; Union of India v. Parameswaran Pillai , 2013 ACJ 635
(Ker.) ; and Raj Kumari v. Union of India , 1993 ACJ 846 (M.P.) .
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the absence of a railway ticket, coupled
with the nature of injuries and the departmental inquiry report, sufficiently
established that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did
not occur in an untoward incident.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
9. The questions which arise for consideration are whether the appellants
have established, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred in an untoward
incident, and whether they are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the
Act.
9.1 Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to notice that Section
124-A of the Act imposes statutory liability upon the railway administration to pay
compensation in the event of death or injury to a passenger in an untoward
incident, irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
railway administration. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act includes within the expression
“untoward incident” the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasised the beneficial nature of the legislation and the need to adopt a liberal
construction. The principle of no-fault liability under Section 124-A has also been
explained in Jameela v. Union of India , (2010) 12 SCC 443 .
10. The legal position concerning proof of bona fide passenger status has
been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi ,
(2019) 3 SCC 572 . It has been held that the initial burden rests upon the claimants,
which may be discharged by filing an affidavit setting out the relevant facts,
having regard to the fact that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to
proceedings before the Tribunal. Once the initial burden is discharged, the onus
shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim. The mere non-recovery of a railway ticket
from the body of the deceased is not conclusive, as the ticket may have been lost in
the course of the accident. Thus, the mere fact that a body is found on railway
premises would not, by itself, conclusively establish the status of a bona fide
passenger. At the same time, the absence of a ticket cannot be treated as an
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
infallible test for rejecting a claim. The evidence has to be assessed cumulatively,
on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
10.1 Adverting to the facts of the present case, AW-1 specifically deposed
that the deceased left home on 09.06.2013 for Ambala Cantt. and thereafter
intended to visit his maternal uncle at Shahabad. He further stated that the
deceased reached Railway Station Jagadhri, purchased a ticket for Ambala Cantt.
and boarded a passenger train. Significantly, the substance of this version finds
corroboration from the statement of the father recorded by the GRP on the very
date of the occurrence, i.e. 09.06.2013, which was before any claim for
compensation was instituted. The identity, occupation and residence of the
deceased also stand corroborated by the statements of the village Sarpanch and
other residents. Further, the place where the body was found, namely Km. 234/5-7
between Barara and Mustafabad, falls on the railway route between Jagadhri and
Ambala Cantt., which is consistent with the journey stated to have been undertaken
by the deceased.
10.2 The Tribunal rejected the claim primarily on the ground that no
railway ticket was recovered from the body, despite the recovery of a purse
containing Rs. 1,140/-, a mobile phone and two motorcycle keys. The aforesaid
reasoning, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. The
body was found in a badly mutilated condition, bearing multiple injuries and
amputations. The record further indicates that the shirt of the deceased was
missing, whereas the personal search memo records recovery of only the purse,
mobile phone and keys. No material has been brought on record to establish that
any search of the surrounding railway track was conducted for the missing shirt or
for the ticket allegedly carried by the deceased. In such circumstances, the non-
recovery of the ticket cannot be elevated to the status of conclusive proof that the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
deceased was travelling without one. The fact that the deceased was carrying
money and personal belongings, coupled with the contemporaneous statement of
AW-1 and the other supporting material, lends credence to the appellants' version.
Nothing material could be elicited in the cross-examination of AW-1 to discredit
his testimony.
10.3 The departmental inquiry report relied upon by the respondent does
not improve its case. The conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger rests substantially upon the non-recovery of a ticket and the absence of
an eyewitness. Neither the author of the report nor any official who participated in
the inquiry was examined before the Tribunal. Even the Loco Pilot, whose
statement was sought during the inquiry, was not examined. The report, therefore,
does not furnish any independent evidence to rebut the version put forth by the
appellants and corroborated by the contemporaneous police record. The respondent
has also failed to produce any material indicating that the deceased had any reason
to be present on the railway track at the place of occurrence other than for
undertaking the journey pleaded by the appellants. In these circumstances, the
appellants discharged the initial burden of establishing that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger, whereas the respondent failed to rebut the same. Accordingly,
the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 deserves to be set aside.
11. The next question is whether the death of the deceased occurred in an
untoward incident. The Tribunal concluded that the nature of the injuries,
particularly the amputations, was inconsistent with a fall from a moving train and
suggested that the deceased was run over while crossing the track. However, no
medical witness was examined to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, the
post-mortem report records that the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, while specifically noting that the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
possibility of such injuries having been sustained in a railway accident could not be
ruled out. The medical officer did not opine that the injuries were inconsistent with
a fall from a moving train. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, therefore, travels
beyond the medical evidence available on record. A person falling from a moving
train may sustain serious injuries upon coming into contact with the railway track
or its adjoining structure and may also come under the wheels of a train. The
nature of the injuries, by itself, could not have furnished a sufficient basis for
rejecting the appellants' version.
11.1 Equally, the theory that the deceased was crossing the railway track is
not supported by any specific pleading or evidence led by the respondent. The
written statement does not identify any particular place or circumstance in which
the deceased was allegedly crossing the track. The departmental inquiry report also
does not record any eyewitness account establishing such a fact. The Loco Pilot
was not examined, and the report merely records that the body was already lying at
the spot. The contemporaneous police record, on the other hand, attributes the
injuries to a railway train and records the apparent cause of death as a railway
accident. The SHO, after considering the statements of the witnesses and the post-
mortem report, concluded that the death occurred in a railway accident and that
none was to be blamed. There is no material on record suggesting that the deceased
attempted suicide, was intoxicated or deliberately exposed himself to danger by
crossing the track.
11.2 The burden of establishing that the case falls within any of the
exceptions specified in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act rests upon the
respondent-Railways. In the present case, no evidence was led to establish the
applicability of any such exception. The allegation that the deceased was
responsible for his own death remained unsubstantiated. Upon an overall
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
appreciation of the evidence, the inference that the deceased accidentally fell from
a passenger train while travelling from Jagadhri towards Ambala Cantt. is
reasonably borne out by the circumstances on record. The contrary view taken by
the Tribunal is founded on assumptions regarding the non-recovery of the ticket
and the nature of the injuries, rather than on any cogent evidence. Accordingly, the
finding on Issue No. 2 is also set aside, and it is held that the death of the deceased
occurred in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read
with Section 124-A of the Act.
12. As regards Issue No. 3, the Tribunal left the question of dependency
undecided. The record establishes that the appellants are the parents of the
deceased. The deceased's wife, Pooja Devi, stated before the GRP that, following
the death of her husband, she remarried on 07.07.2014 and was living with her
subsequent husband. She has not instituted any claim for compensation in the
present proceedings. In view of the evidence available on record and the fact that
the matter has remained pending since 2015, there is no justification for remanding
the matter to the Tribunal merely to decide the aforesaid issue. The appellants,
being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to maintain the claim for
compensation. The objection regarding non-joinder of the widow, in the facts of
the present case, does not furnish a ground to defeat the claim altogether. Issue No.
3 is accordingly decided in favour of the appellants.
13. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 09.06.2013,
whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 19.01.2018. In view of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) and
subsequently reiterated in Radha Yadav v. Union of India , (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
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
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 2013, 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.”

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.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
19.01.2018 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
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10

FAO No.4023 of 2018 (O&M)
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.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.

(HARKESH MANUJA)
October 30, 2026 JUDGE
Atik

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.10.31 09:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document