Kamlesh Rani And Others vs Union Of India

1




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

RH


FAO-1000-2022 (O&M)
)
1 The date wh
en the judgment was reserved
24.09.2026
2 The date wh
en the judgment is pronounced
30.10.2026
3 The date wh
en the judgment is uploaded on
n the website 31.10.2026
4 Whether only
or whether th
5 The delay, i
and reasons

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

KAMLESH RAN
NI AND OTHERS
...Appellants

Vs.
UNION OF IND
DIA
..Respondent
CORAM: HON’
’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKES
SH MANUJA
Present: Mr. A

Mr. S

Atul Bhatia, Advocate for the a
appellants.
S.K. Sharma, Sr. Panel Couns
sel for the respondent.


HARKESH MA

1. By w
NUJA, J.
way of the present appeal fi
iled under Section 23 of the
e
Railway Claims
s Tribunal Act, 1987 (for sho
ort, ‘the 1987 Act’), challenge
e
has been laid t
to the judgment dated 20.12.
.2021 passed by the learned
d
Railway Claims
s Tribunal, Chandigarh Benc
ch (for short, ‘the Tribunal’),

whereby the cla
aim application filed by the ap
ppellants under Section 16 of
f
the 1987 Act r
read with Section 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989 (for
r
short, ‘the 1989
9 Act’), seeking compensation
n of Rs.10,00,000/- along with
h
interest on acc
count of the death of Deepak
k Kumar on 03.07.2019, was
s
dismissed.
2. Briefly
y stating, the case set up by
y the appellants was that on
n
30.06.2019, the
e deceased informed his wife
e, Kamlesh Rani, that he was
s
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2


proceeding to Neelkanth Mahadev Temple near Rishikesh along with his
friends, namely, Manpreet Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Baba Ishwar Giri.
After having darshan, the deceased and his companions reached
Railway Station, Rishikesh, on 03.07.2019, where the deceased
purchased joint journey ticket No. A-92117623 for three persons, namely,
himself, Manpreet Singh and Gurmeet Singh, for travelling from
Rishikesh to Ambala Cantt. The said ticket was handed over to Manpreet
Singh. Baba Ishwar Giri, being a saint/priest, did not purchase a ticket. At
about 9:15 p.m. on 03.07.2019, the deceased informed his wife over the
telephone that they having boarded Barmer Express, Train No. 24887,
would reach home during the night. Owing to heavy rush, the deceased
and his companions boarded different compartments. While the train was
passing through between Kesri and Barara stations, near KM 239/11-13,
the deceased allegedly fell from the train due to a sudden jerk and the
movement of passengers, resulting in his death at the spot. His
companions, who were unaware of the incident, searched for him upon
reaching Ambala Cantt. at about 10:50 p.m. and, on receiving no
response to their telephone calls, returned home. On 04.07.2019 at
about 7:20 a.m., the Station Master, Ambala Cantt., sent a memo to the
SHO, GRP, Ambala Cantt., regarding a dead body lying beside the
railway track at KM 239/11-13 between Barara and Kesri. The police
reached the spot, conducted inquest proceedings vide Report No. 94,
prepared the requisite recovery memos and sent the body for post-
mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. Although
nothing was recovered from the person of the deceased, a torn bag
containing clothes and a mobile phone was found lying near the body.
The deceased was identified by his companions and his brother, Vimal
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3


Kumar, on the same day, and the journey ticket was handed over to the
GRP by the co-passengers.
3. The respondent contested the claim application, inter alia, pleading
that no untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with
Section 124-A of the 1989 Act occurred; that the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger as the ticket produced was for three persons
whereas four persons were stated to be travelling; that no ticket was
recovered from the person of the deceased; and that, according to the
guard of the train, no passenger fell from it. It was further pleaded that
the body was found between the Up and Down railway lines, which was
inconsistent with the appellants’ version.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the
following issues:
“(i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of
the alleged incident?
(ii) Whether the incident in question was covered under Section
123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the 1989 Act?
(iii) Whether the applicants were the sole dependants of the
deceased?
(iv) Relief.”
5. The learned Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the
appellants, primarily on the grounds that it was improbable for four
persons travelling together to board different compartments; that the
ticket produced was for three persons only; that no ticket was recovered
from the person of the deceased; that the nature of the injuries was
inconsistent with a simple fall from a moving train; and that the body
would have been noticed earlier by the railway staff if the deceased fell
from the train during the night. The learned Tribunal also drew an
adverse inference from the fact that the deceased was a resident of
Village Kesri and the body was found between Kesri and Barara. In view
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4


of its findings on the aforesaid issues, issue Nos. 3 and 4 were not
adjudicated upon, resulting in dismissal of the claim application.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned
judgment was based on conjectures and surmises and that the learned
Tribunal failed to appreciate the contemporaneous police record, which
established that the journey ticket was produced before the GRP on the
very next morning. It was further submitted that the statements of the co-
passengers were consistent and that the respondent did not examine any
witness, including the guard of the train or a medical expert, to
substantiate its defence. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned
Tribunal wrongly discarded the claim on the basis of the nature of injuries
and the absence of an eyewitness, despite the settled legal position that
such claims were to be adjudicated on the touchstone of preponderance
of probabilities.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger, as no ticket was recovered from his person and the ticket
produced covered only three persons. It was further contended that the
nature of the injuries and the location of the body indicate that the
deceased was run over by a train rather than having accidentally fallen
from one.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper-book.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to notice that
Section 124-A of the 1989 Act provides for compensation on account of
death or injury resulting from an untoward incident, irrespective of any
wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration,
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5


subject to the exceptions stipulated therein. Section 123(c)(2) of the 1989
Act includes within the expression ‘untoward incident’ the accidental
falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The liability
under Section 124-A of the 1989 Act is in the nature of no-fault liability.
The provision, being beneficial in nature, has to be interpreted in a
manner that advances its object. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union
of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 , and
Jameela v. Union of India , (2010) 12 SCC 443 , has explained the
scope of the aforesaid provision. Further, in Union of India v. Rina Devi ,
(2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that non-recovery of
a railway ticket from the body of the deceased would not, by itself, be
sufficient to deny the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger. The initial burden upon the claimants is to establish
their case on the basis of the available circumstances and the standard
of preponderance of probabilities, whereafter the burden shifts to the
railway administration to rebut the same. It was also held that the
absence of an eyewitness is not fatal to a claim of this nature. The same
approach finds support from Union of India v. Radha Yadav , (2019) 3
SCC 410 .
10. Adverting to the first question, the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is primarily
founded upon the absence of a ticket from his person and the fact that
the ticket produced was for three persons, whereas four persons were
stated to be travelling. In my considered opinion, neither of these
circumstances, when examined in the light of the entire evidence
available on record, can sustain the conclusion drawn by the learned
Tribunal. A perusal of the jamatalashi memo, Ex. AW-1/3, shows that
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6


nothing whatsoever was recovered from the person of the deceased. The
absence of a ticket from his person, therefore, cannot be considered
conclusive, particularly when the appellants’ case is that the deceased
purchased a joint ticket and handed it over to Manpreet Singh. The said
explanation is supported by the statements of the co-passengers and the
contemporaneous police record. Significantly, the ticket was produced
before the GRP on 04.07.2019 itself, immediately after the body was
discovered and identified. The Fard Peshkardgi, Ex. AW-1/5, records the
production of Ticket No. A-92117623 dated 03.07.2019, valid for the
journey from Rishikesh to Ambala Cantt., by Manpreet Singh and
Gurmeet Singh, along with Baba Ishwar Giri, in the presence of Vimal
Kumar, brother of the deceased. The ticket was accordingly taken into
possession by the police. The contemporaneous record, therefore, lends
substantial support to the appellants’ version and rules out the possibility
of the ticket having been introduced as an afterthought. The statements
of the three co-passengers recorded during the GRP proceedings under
Section 175 Cr.P.C., exhibited as Ex. AW-1/13 to Ex. AW-1/15, are
consistent with regard to the purchase of the ticket by the deceased, the
handing over thereof to Manpreet Singh and the circumstances in which
they boarded different compartments owing to heavy rush. Gurmeet
Singh, while appearing as AW-2, reiterated the same version, and his
testimony could not be shaken in cross-examination. The said evidence
also finds support from the telephone call allegedly made by the
deceased to his wife shortly before the incident, informing her that he
boarded the train.
10.1 The observation of the learned Tribunal that it did not appeal to
reason that four persons travelling together would board different
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7


compartments is based on a mere conjecture. In a crowded train,
passengers travelling together may well board different compartments
owing to lack of space. The explanation furnished by the appellants is
neither inherently improbable nor contradicted by any evidence led by the
respondent. The learned Tribunal, therefore, could not have discarded
the consistent testimony of the witnesses and the contemporaneous
police record on the basis of its own assumptions. The fact that the ticket
was issued for three persons, whereas four persons were stated to be
travelling, also does not, by itself, establish that the deceased was
travelling without a ticket. The specific case of the appellants is that the
ticket covered the deceased and two of his companions, whereas Baba
Ishwar Giri travelled without a ticket of his own. The respondent neither
established that the deceased was the unticketed passenger nor brought
on record any material to discredit the ticket produced by the co-
passenger. The mere circumstance that one of the companions did not
possess a ticket cannot be used to deny the claim of the deceased
without establishing that the deceased himself was not a bona fide
passenger. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants have
discharged the initial burden cast upon them in terms of the law laid
down in Rina Devi (supra) . The respondent, on the other hand, failed to
rebut the evidence produced by the appellants. Accordingly, the finding
of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is set aside, and it is held that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train.
11. Coming to the second question, the learned Tribunal concluded
that the deceased was hit and run over by some train and did not
accidentally fall from the train. The aforesaid conclusion, however, is not
supported by any cogent evidence on record. The post-mortem report
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8


records multiple grievous injuries, including injuries to the head, neck,
limbs and pelvic region. The Medical Officer, in response to the query
raised by the police, opined that the cause of death was head injury
along with the other injuries described in the report, which were sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were ante-
mortem and death occurred immediately. Significantly, the possibility of a
railway accident was not ruled out by the Medical Officer. There is no
medical opinion on record to establish that the injuries could not have
been sustained on account of a fall from a moving train. The learned
Tribunal, in the absence of any contrary medical evidence, could not
have substituted its own opinion for that of the Medical Officer. The
expression ‘accidental falling’ does not contemplate a fall resulting only in
minor or simple injuries. A person falling from a moving train may sustain
grievous or crush injuries, particularly if the person comes into contact
with the wheels or the railway track. The nature or severity of the injuries,
therefore, cannot, in the absence of cogent contrary evidence, be made
the sole basis for holding that the deceased was run over by another
train. Additionally, the contemporaneous police record also lends support
to the appellants’ case. The death report, Ex. AW-1/2, records the
apparent cause of death as a railway accident and notes that there was
no rumour or suspicion of suicide. The inquest proceedings contain the
observations of the investigating officer regarding the circumstances in
which the body was found. Further, the final report dated 14.08.2019, Ex.
AW-1/19, records that, upon consideration of the statements of the
witnesses and the heirs of the deceased, along with the post-mortem
report, the death was found to have occurred due to a railway accident
and no cognizable offence was disclosed. There is no material on record
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9


to suggest that the deceased committed suicide, inflicted injury upon
himself, or was involved in any criminal act. The respondent also failed to
establish the applicability of any of the exceptions contained in the
proviso to Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. The statutory liability, therefore,
cannot be avoided merely on the basis of conjectures regarding the
circumstances in which the deceased sustained the injuries.
11.1 Another circumstance which assumes significance is that the
respondent did not identify the train by which the deceased was allegedly
run over. No loco pilot, guard or other railway official was examined to
establish that the deceased had been hit by any train. The respondent
relied upon the DRM inquiry report, which incorporates the statement of
the guard, Janki Prasad, stating that he neither saw any person falling
from the train nor received any information regarding such an incident.
The said statement is, at best, indicative of the fact that the guard had no
knowledge of the occurrence. It does not establish that the incident did
not take place. The absence of an eyewitness cannot be treated as fatal
to a claim under Section 124-A of the 1989 Act, particularly when the
claim is supported by the surrounding circumstances and the
contemporaneous record. As noticed above, the guard was not examined
before the Tribunal, and no opportunity was afforded to the appellants to
test the veracity of the statement attributed to him. The said statement, in
any event, does not furnish any positive evidence that the deceased was
run over by another train. Even the DRM inquiry report records that the
ticket produced by the co-passenger was verified through the concerned
railway system and was issued at Rishikesh on 03.07.2019 for the
journey to Ambala Cantt. The circumstances relied upon in the inquiry
report against the claim are essentially that the ticket was for three
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10


persons, that the deceased travelled in a different coach and that no
eyewitness was available. These circumstances have already been
examined and found insufficient to discredit the appellants’ case. The
inquiry report does not identify any train by which the deceased was
allegedly run over, nor does it contain any material conclusively
disproving the possibility of an accidental fall from the train.
11.2 The learned Tribunal has also drawn an adverse inference from
the fact that the deceased was a resident of Village Kesri and that the
body was found between Kesri and Barara. This reasoning is untenable.
The aforesaid circumstance was not pleaded by the respondent as a
ground to deny the claim. Moreover, the DRM inquiry report itself records
that the place where the body was found was neither a trespass-prone
nor a residential area and that fields were situated on both sides of the
railway track. The fact that the deceased resided in the vicinity of the
place of occurrence does not, by itself, establish that he was crossing the
railway track or that the death occurred otherwise than in an untoward
incident. The further reasoning of the learned Tribunal that the body
would have been noticed by the railway staff during the night is equally
speculative. If the deceased was run over by another train, as concluded
by the learned Tribunal, the same reasoning would apply to the crew of
that train as well. However, no such train was identified and no evidence
was led to establish that the deceased was run over. The record
indicates that the body was noticed by the railway staff during the early
morning hours of 04.07.2019, whereafter the matter was reported to the
concerned authorities. The fact that the body was discovered only in the
morning does not negate the possibility of an accidental fall during the
preceding night. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, it emerges
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11


that the appellants have established, on a preponderance of probabilities,
that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger and died on
account of an accidental fall from the train. The findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 2 are based on conjectures and
surmises and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the issues are
decided in favour of the appellants, and it is held that the death of
Deepak Kumar occurred in an untoward incident within the meaning of
Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the 1989 Act.
12. It must be noticed here that during the pendency of the present
appeal, appellant No. 3 expired. Accordingly, the amount, if any, found
payable to appellant No. 3 shall be released in favour of the mother of
the deceased, being the successor entitled thereto, subject to her
entitlement being established in accordance with the applicable law of
succession.
As regards the entitlement of the appellants, the deceased was
survived by his widow, Kamlesh Rani; son, Diler Singh; parents, Bheem
Sain and Satya Devi; and two married daughters, Ranjna and Sweety. In
the absence of any material establishing that the married daughters were
dependent upon the deceased, no part of the compensation is being
apportioned in their favour. The compensation shall accordingly be
disbursed amongst the widow, son and parents of the deceased in the
ratio of 50:30:10:10.
13. As regards the quantum of compensation, the accident occurred on
03.07.2019. In terms of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, read with the Schedule thereto,
as amended with effect from 01.01.2017, the compensation payable in
the event of death is Rs.8,00,000/-. In Rina Devi , (supra) , while dealing
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

12


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. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated
20.12.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigarh, is set aside. The claim application is allowed and the
appellants are 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
amongst the eligible dependants in accordance with law. In case the
respondent 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
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

13


date of actual realization. The amount shall be shared in the
abovementioned ratio between the appellants.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

30.10.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No




TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.10.31 13:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document