Commuter Who Died After Falling From Sealdah Express: Delhi HC Revives Family’s Claim, Citing Railways’ Failure to Produce MST Travel Rules

The deceased was travelling from Old Delhi to Ghaziabad when he fell from the Sealdah Express at Shahdara and later died from his injuries.

His dependants sought compensation, relying on an MST valid for travel between Meerut City and Delhi.

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the death resulted from an untoward incident and that the claimants were dependants, but dismissed the claim because the MST did not, in its view, authorise travel on the Sealdah Express, a Superfast train.

On appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the High Court considered whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal to the High Court.

The Court referred to Clauses 242.1(iv) and 242.1(vi) of the IRCA Coaching Tariff, Part I, Volume I: season tickets are valid on Passenger trains and on Mail/Express/Superfast trains only where the Railway Administration specifically permits such travel; where permitted, travel in an unreserved coach may require a prescribed Superfast surcharge, subject to the stated exception for journeys under 325 kilometres.

Paragraph 265(a) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Volume I, provides for Railway Administrations to notify the rules and conditions governing season tickets.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, a claimant’s initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous; once relevant facts are shown, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent evidence.

The Court also relied on Reshma & Ors. v. Union of India, FAO 224/2019, decided 28 November 2023, for the need to consider applicable railway instructions and the Railways’ evidence when assessing bona fide passenger status.

The MST was recovered from the deceased, and the Railways’ own inquiry verified that it was valid on the date of the incident for the Meerut City–Delhi route.

The Tribunal had specifically directed the Railways to clarify whether an MST could be used on another category of train on payment of additional charges, but the Railways produced no instruction showing whether MST holders were permitted to travel in the unreserved coaches of the Sealdah Express or whether such travel was prohibited.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court held that the verified MST discharged the claimants’ initial burden and that the Railways had not rebutted it with cogent evidence.

Nor could the absence of a separate surcharge ticket decide the issue without first establishing that permission and surcharge requirements applied to this train.

It allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law, with directions for disbursement within two months of receipt of the order; the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 1 December 2026.