Ram Mayadi & Anr vs Union Of India

FAO-5360-2015 (O&M) --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5360-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on: 05.08.2026

RAM MAYADI AND ANOTHER …Appellants
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA …Respondent
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 05.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 09.09.2026
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. Anand Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate
for the respondent (thr. V.C.)

HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order
dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal'),
whereby the claim application filed by the appellants under Section 16 of
SONIKA
2026.09.09 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5360-2015 (O&M) --2--
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation on account
of death of their son Pardeep Kumar, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that on
22.09.2011, deceased Pardeep Kumar was returning from Sirhind to
Jagadhri by train. He informed his father telephonically that he had
reached Jagadhri and asked him to come to the railway station. However,
when he did not reach home, his father searched for him and the next
morning was informed by GRP/Jagadhri that a dead body was lying near
the railway track between Jagadhri Workshop and Jagadhri. The
deceased was identified by his parents. A railway ticket bearing
No.57174711 dated 22.09.2011 from Sirhind to Jagadhri was also
recovered from his person during the jamatalashi.
3. The claim was contested by the Railway on the plea that the
deceased already completed his journey on 22.09.2011 and, on the
following day, while allegedly crossing the railway track, he was struck by
some train. It was, therefore, pleaded that the case was not covered
under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989.
4. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim, principally
relied upon the fact that the ticket recovered from the deceased was
dated 22.09.2011, whereas his dead body was found on 23.09.2011. It
accordingly concluded that the deceased completed his journey and
thereafter suffered injuries while crossing the railway line, which
according to the Tribunal amounted to a self-inflicted injury/criminal act.
The Tribunal also noticed certain contradictions in the statements of the
SONIKA
2026.09.09 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5360-2015 (O&M) --3--
parents and the absence of an eyewitness to the alleged fall from the
train.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record, this Court finds the aforesaid approach of the learned Tribunal
to be unsustainable.
6. Admittedly, a railway ticket bearing No.57174711, dated
22.09.2011, from Sirhind to Jagadhri, was recovered from the person of
the deceased during the proceedings conducted by GRP. The said fact is
also borne out from the evidence led by the Railway itself. Thus, the
deceased's status as a bona fide passenger cannot be discarded merely
because there was no eyewitness to his boarding the train or falling
therefrom. More importantly, the Railway failed to establish its alternative
version that the deceased deliberately entered upon or crossed the
railway track and was thereafter struck by a moving train. The keyman,
Shri Ram Pal, examined on behalf of the Railway, admitted that the place
where the dead body was found was situated on the line from Jagadhri
Workshop towards Jagadhri and that, in case a person falls from a
passing train, he could fall at that very location. He also stated before the
GRP that the person might have died by falling from some train. From the
evidence available on record, it can be discerned that as per the
message received in the office of RPF on 23.09.2011 (Ex.A1), the dead
body was lying outside the track. As per Ex.A2 even the prima facie view
expressed upon consideration of injuries about amputation of left feet and
the head injury was that the death occurred due to fall from train; even the
gangman in his statement Ex.A5 also endorsed that the cause of death
SONIKA
2026.09.09 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5360-2015 (O&M) --4--
was due to fall from train. Moreover, the journey ticket was also recovered
in the jamatalashi proved on record as Ex.A3. Even the parents of
deceased having appeared as AW-1 & AW-2 proved their case.
6.1 The further evidence of the Railway also suffers from material
inconsistency regarding the precise location and circumstances of the
incident. The Dy. Station Superintendent, Shri Satish Kumar, initially
referred to an incident at a different kilometer but, upon being recalled,
clarified that the memo relied upon in the present case related to the
incident at km 214/24-26 between Jagadhri Workshop and Jagadhri. In
these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the
deceased was crossing the railway track and suffered a self-inflicted
injury is clearly founded upon conjecture. Mere absence of an eyewitness
cannot be made the basis for rejecting a claim of this nature, particularly
when the deceased himself lost his life and the journey ticket was
recovered from his person. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jameela and others v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 , held that
even negligence on the part of a passenger in falling from a running train
would not, by itself, disentitle the claimants from compensation under
Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The Court further explained that
negligence cannot be equated with the "criminal act" contemplated by the
proviso to Section 124-A.
6.2 Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
there is no material on record to establish suicide, self-inflicted injury or
any deliberate criminal act on the part of the deceased. On the contrary,
the recovery of the journey ticket from his person, coupled with the
SONIKA
2026.09.09 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5360-2015 (O&M) --5--
surrounding circumstances and the absence of cogent evidence
supporting the Railway's alternative theory, establishes on the touchstone
of preponderance of probabilities that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and that his death occurred in an untoward incident within the
meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, 1989.
7. As regards the objection regarding relationship, the claimants are
admittedly the parents of the deceased and no rival claimant has come
forward. Mere non-mention of the deceased's name in the ration card
cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as conclusive proof
against the relationship, particularly when both parents consistently
asserted the relationship and participated in the identification of the dead
body. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on
Issues No.1 and 2 are reversed and it is held that the death of Pardeep
Kumar was the result of an untoward incident and the appellants are
entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
8. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 22.09.2011,
whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 14.03.2014. 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 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 2011, the appellants would be
SONIKA
2026.09.09 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-5360-2015 (O&M) --6--
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.
9. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, is set aside. The appellants shall be
entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization, or
Rs.8,00,000/-, which ever is higher. The respondent-Railway shall deposit
the entire amount with the learned Tribunal within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment,
whereafter the same shall be disbursed to the appellants 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.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
September 08, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika
JUDGE
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No
SONIKA
2026.09.09 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document