Dead Passenger’s Verified Ticket Helps Widow And Three Sons Win Railway Compensation For Fatal Train Fall: P&H HC

The appellants, the deceased Ashok Kumar’s widow and three sons, sought compensation for his death, alleging that he accidentally fell from a train on 14 March 2015 while travelling from Ambala City to Rajpura.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that bona fide passenger status and an untoward incident had not been established, and also faulting the non-impleadment of the deceased’s parents.

The appellants challenged that decision, relying on a ticket recovered from the deceased and verified by railway authorities, as well as police and medical records.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within “untoward incident”; Section 124-A imposes no-fault liability for death or injury resulting from such an incident, subject to its statutory exceptions; and Section 123(b) defines “dependant” to include, among others, a deceased passenger’s wife and son.

The provisions are beneficial and are to be construed liberally. 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, were cited on railway liability; Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, was relied on concerning claims and interest; and Radha Yadav v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 410, was relied on for determining the applicable compensation by comparing the relevant amounts.

The valid journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and verified by railway authorities; other recovered tickets and contemporaneous statements corroborated his movements. The Court held that the absence of evidence identifying the exact train or boarding time was not fatal, and that the evidence cumulatively established bona fide passenger status on a preponderance of probabilities.

The inquest, death and post-mortem records, together with the police final report, supported death in a railway accident; the Tribunal’s contrary view about the injuries was unsupported by medical evidence. The absence of an eyewitness or a train crew report did not displace that evidence, and the respondent produced no evidence that the deceased had trespassed, crossed the track, committed suicide or otherwise fell within a Section 124-A exception.

The appellants’ status as widow and sons was established, and there was no evidence that either parent was alive and dependent; non-impleadment of the parents therefore did not defeat the claim.

Compensation was determined under the approach in Rina Devi and Radha Yadav.

The appellants were awarded Rs. 4,00,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization, or Rs. 8,00,000, whichever was higher. The Railway Administration was directed to deposit the amount within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; failing timely deposit, interest at 12% per annum would apply after that period until realization. The award was apportioned 50% to the widow and the balance equally among the three sons.