Delhi HC Reopens Compensation Claim Of Passenger Who Lost Leg In Train Fall, As His Sworn Ticket Claim Shifted Burden To Railways

The appellant claimed that he was travelling from Jalandhar to New Delhi on 1 February 2016 with a valid ticket when he fell from the moving train near Sadar Bazar Railway Station, sustaining injuries that ultimately resulted in amputation of his left leg.

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that he had fallen from the train and suffered the injuries but dismissed his claim because it found that he had not proved he was a bona fide passenger.

The Tribunal relied on the missing ticket, the absence of independent evidence of purchase, variations in his accounts of the incident, and a statement attributed to another person in the DRM Report.

The appellant challenged that dismissal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal.

The Court considered the Railways Act, 1989, under which the Tribunal had treated the fall as an “untoward incident”.

Applying Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that the mere absence of a ticket with an injured or deceased person does not defeat a claim of bona fide passenger status.

The claimant bears an initial burden, which may be discharged by an affidavit setting out the relevant journey facts; once discharged, the onus shifts to the Railways, and the issue is determined on the established facts and attending circumstances.

The appellant pleaded that he had purchased a ticket for the Jalandhar–New Delhi journey and reiterated that assertion in his affidavit, thereby discharging the initial burden under Rina Devi.

The Railways did not rebut that assertion with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal’s inference that the appellant’s ability to make an emergency call meant he would necessarily know whether his ticket had been taken away was speculative; non-recovery of the ticket did not establish that no ticket had been purchased.

Although the appellant’s accounts differed as to the precise circumstances of the fall, the Court held that the variations did not displace the consistent material fact that he fell from the train and suffered injuries, and did not justify rejecting the claim in its entirety.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter for assessment of compensation in accordance with law, directing that the compensation be disbursed within two months of receipt of the order.

The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.