Urmila Devi And Ors vs Union Of India

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1952-2018 (O&M)

SMT. URMILA DEVI AND ORS. ...Appellants
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA ...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 16.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 11.11.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced Full
or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, Not applicable
and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate
for respondent-UOI.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the 1987 Act’), challenge has been laid to
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --2--
the judgment dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim
preferred by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of
the death of Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an alleged
untoward incident was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the appellants are the widow and three sons of the
deceased, who was about 55 years of age and was engaged in the business of
exchanging old and mutilated currency notes. In connection with his work, he
frequently travelled by train to Rajpura, Sirhind and other places in Punjab. The
case set up by the appellants is that on 14.03.2015, the deceased left his house for
Rajpura after purchasing railway ticket No. 91893189 from Ambala City to
Rajpura. On account of heavy rush and a sudden jerk, he accidentally fell from
the running train at KM 270/35-37 between Ambala City and Shambhu railway
stations, sustained multiple injuries and succumbed thereto. His dead body was
noticed on the Up line during the early hours of 15.03.2015.
3. The respondent contested the claim, disputing both the occurrence of
an untoward incident and the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger. It
was contended that the ticket was issued at 2:30 p.m. on 14.03.2015, whereas the
dead body was noticed at about 3:00 a.m. on 15.03.2015 in the vicinity of Ambala
City. It was further asserted that the circumstances did not support an accidental
fall from a running train and that the deceased appeared to have become
entangled with a moving train.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the
following issues:
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --3--
“(i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train?
(ii) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in an untoward incident
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
(iii) Whether the applicants were the only valid dependants of the deceased?
(iv) Relief.”
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal decided Issues No. 1
and 2 against the appellants, primarily on the grounds that no particulars of the
train or the time of boarding was furnished, no eyewitness to the alleged fall was
produced, and the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the dead
body was found did not establish an accidental fall. Issue No. 3 was also decided
against the appellants on the ground that the parents of the deceased were not
impleaded. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings
recorded by the Tribunal were contrary to the documentary evidence, including
the reports prepared by the respondent’s own officials. It was contended that a
valid ticket from Ambala City to Rajpura was recovered from the person of the
deceased and was duly verified by the railway authorities. The inquest report,
death report and final report of the police also supported the conclusion that the
deceased died in a railway accident. He further submitted that the respondent
neither established any circumstance falling within the exceptions to Section 124-
A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the 1989 Act’) nor produced any
evidence to substantiate its allegation that the deceased was responsible for his
own death.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned judgment, and submitted that, in the absence of an eyewitness, the
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --4--
appellants failed to establish that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide
passenger or that his death occurred in an untoward incident.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to notice that Section
123(c)(2) of the 1989 Act includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a
train carrying passengers within the expression ‘untoward incident’. 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, subject to the exceptions
stipulated therein. The Explanation appended to Section 124-A also recognises a
person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a passenger train as a
passenger. The liability contemplated under Section 124-A is, therefore, founded
on the principle of no-fault liability. The provisions, being beneficial in nature,
are required to be construed liberally so as to advance their object. In Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 577 , and Jameela
and others v. Union of India , 2010(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 362 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court explained the scope of the statutory liability of the railway administration.
Further, in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated the principles governing claims arising out of railway accidents.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the
first question which arises for consideration is whether the deceased was a bona
fide passenger. A perusal of the record reveals that railway ticket No. 91893189,
issued on 14.03.2015 for the journey from Ambala City to Rajpura, was
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --5--
recovered from the person of the deceased during the search conducted by the
Government Railway Police. The recovery stands duly recorded in the fard
jamatalashi (Ex. A-4), the inquest report (Ex. A-1) and the statements of the
police official and railway gangman recorded during the investigation. More
importantly, the genuineness of the aforesaid ticket was verified by the railway
authorities themselves. The Divisional Railway Manager’s report records that the
ticket was checked through the Chief Booking Supervisor, Ambala City, and was
found to be genuine. The enquiry report of the Railway Protection Force dated
27.06.2015 also records verification of the said ticket, besides two other tickets
recovered from the deceased No. 18109610 for the journey from Ambala Cantt to
Sirhind and ticket No. 70322299 for the return journey from Sirhind to Ambala
City. The aforesaid tickets furnish corroboration to the version put forth by the
appellants that the deceased travelled to Sirhind on 13.03.2015, returned to
Ambala City on 14.03.2015 and thereafter proceeded towards Rajpura. The
statements of the widow and the son recorded by the police during the
investigation are also consistent with this sequence of events. No material was
brought on record by the respondent to discredit the verification conducted by its
own officials.
10.1 The learned Tribunal, therefore, fell into error in observing that the
appellants did not produce any document establishing the purchase of the ticket.
The finding also overlooks the fact that the ticket was recovered from the person
of the deceased and its genuineness was verified by the respondent itself. The
absence of particulars regarding the exact train or the precise time of boarding
cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as fatal to the claim, particularly
when the deceased himself was no longer available to furnish such particulars and
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --6--
the appellants were not travelling with him. The testimony of AW-1 cannot be
discarded merely because she did not accompany the deceased. Her statement
regarding his movements and the purpose of his journey finds corroboration from
the contemporaneous statements recorded by the police and the documentary
evidence discussed above. The material on record, when considered cumulatively,
establishes, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the deceased
was travelling as a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket.
11. The next question is whether the death of the deceased occurred in
an untoward incident. In this regard, the inquest report (Ex. A-1) records the
opinion of the Medical Officer that the death resulted from injuries to vital
organs, including the brain and lungs, accompanied by multiple fractures,
haemorrhage and shock. The opinion of the Station House Officer recorded
therein attributes the death to a railway accident and states that none was to be
blamed. The death report (Ex. A-3) also records the apparent cause of death as a
railway accident and does not refer to any circumstance suggesting suicide. The
post-mortem report (Ex. A-10) records multiple injuries, including a crushed
injury over the fronto-parietal region, fractures of both femurs, fracture of the
right shoulder and ribs, and injuries to the vertebrae. The Medical Officer
specifically opined that the possibility of the injuries having been caused in a
railway accident could not be ruled out. The final report dated 07.04.2015,
prepared after the inquest proceedings and investigation, also records that the
deceased died in a railway accident on account of a fall from an unknown running
train. The Tribunal has not assigned any cogent reason for disregarding the
aforesaid material. Its observation that the nature of the injuries was inconsistent
with a fall from a running train is not supported by any medical evidence. In the
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --7--
absence of an opinion by the Medical Officer to that effect or any contrary
medical evidence produced by the respondent, such a conclusion could not have
been drawn merely on conjecture.
11.1 The further circumstance relied upon by the Tribunal, namely, that
several trains passed over the Up line after the issuance of the ticket without any
driver reporting the presence of a dead body, is also insufficient to dislodge the
appellants’ case. The evidence of the Station Master establishes only that no such
report was received. It does not establish that the body was lying at the spot
throughout the intervening period or that it could necessarily have been noticed
by every train passing over the track. The absence of an eyewitness or a report by
a co-passenger is likewise not, by itself, sufficient to negate an accidental fall,
particularly when the incident is alleged to have occurred during the evening or
night. Additionally, mere fact that the dead body was found in the vicinity of a
residential area or at a short distance from Ambala City railway station also does
not render the appellants’ case improbable. The deceased purchased a valid ticket
for Rajpura, and the place where his body was found lay on the railway route in
the direction of his intended journey. No evidence was led by the respondent to
establish that the deceased was present on the railway track for any reason
unconnected with his journey. Furthermore, the plea that the deceased became
entangled with a moving train or was himself responsible for his death is equally
unsupported by the record. The enquiry report of the Railway Protection Force
acknowledges that no eyewitness to the incident could be found. No evidence was
produced to establish that the deceased was crossing the railway track, trespassed
upon it or committed suicide. On the contrary, the contemporaneous police record
supports the conclusion that the death occurred in a railway accident. The
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --8--
respondent has, therefore, failed to establish any of the exceptions contemplated
under the proviso to Section 124-A of the 1989 Act.
11.2 In the present case, the recovery and verification of a valid railway
ticket, the evidence regarding the deceased’s movements, the location where the
body was found, the nature of the ante-mortem injuries, and the contemporaneous
police reports, when read together, establish on the preponderance of probabilities
that the deceased accidentally fell from a train carrying passengers and sustained
fatal injuries. The occurrence, therefore, falls within the ambit of an untoward
incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the 1989 Act. Accordingly, the
findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained and
are set aside.
12. As regards Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal declined to accept the
appellants as the only dependants of the deceased on the ground that his parents
were not impleaded. Section 123(b) of the 1989 Act includes the wife and son of
a deceased passenger within the definition of ‘dependant’. The appellants, being
the widow and three sons of the deceased, fall within the said category. Their
relationship with the deceased stands established from the material available on
record. There is no evidence to establish that either parent of the deceased was
alive and dependent upon him. In these circumstances, the claim could not have
been rejected merely on account of the non-impleadment of his parents. The
finding on Issue No. 3 is also set aside.
13. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 14.03.2015,
whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 17.11.2017. In view of
the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --9--
Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 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 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 2015, 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 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh
Bench, is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation of
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-1952-2018 (O&M) --10--
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. The amount of
compensation shall be apportioned as follows: 50% shall be paid to Smt. Urmila
Devi, widow of the deceased, and the remaining 50% shall be distributed equally
amongst his three sons, namely, Vasu Dev, Bhanu Prakash and Vishnu.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
11.11.2026
(HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika
JUDGE
(i)Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No
SONIKA
2026.11.11 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document