Delhi HC Revives Family’s Claim For Holi-Bound Man Killed In Train Fall, Accepting Group Ticket And Companion’s Evidence

The appellants sought compensation for the death of Pratap Singh Gurjar, alleging that he was a bona fide passenger who accidentally fell from the Dehradun Express near Faridabad New Town on 12 March 2017.

His companion, Ajay Pal, had purchased a combined journey ticket for four persons from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Bayana; the ticket was produced before the GRP after the incident.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding bona fide passenger status and an accidental fall unproved. It relied, among other matters, on the ticket’s non-recovery during the inquest, inconsistencies in the evidence, the location of the body, and the train’s scheduled timing.

The appellants appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing bona fide passenger status, which may be discharged by an affidavit setting out the relevant facts; the burden then shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim, and non-recovery of a ticket from the deceased alone does not defeat it. This approach was reiterated in Lata v. Union of India.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act defines an accidental fall from a passenger train as an “untoward incident”; Section 124-A imposes no-fault liability for such incidents, subject to its statutory exceptions. Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Rina Devi establish that liability does not depend on wrongful act, neglect or default by the Railways.

The location of a body, without other cogent evidence, does not conclusively establish whether an accidental fall occurred, as recognised in Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India and Sukhmander Singh v. Union of India.

The combined ticket was on record, Ajay Pal testified that he had bought it for the group, and Pappu Singh’s statement on the date of the incident indicated that the ticket would be produced later. The Court held that its non-recovery during the inquest and discrepancies about its delivery to police did not disprove the deceased’s bona fide passenger status.

The Tribunal’s reliance on the companions’ conduct, the site plan, and the train’s scheduled passage was also insufficient: the record did not establish the train’s actual timing or when the body was discovered relative to the fall, and the body’s location could not be treated as conclusive proof against the claim.

The Court accordingly found that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claim on those grounds.

It remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law and directed that the authorities concerned disburse it within two months of receiving the order. The matter was listed before the Tribunal on 17 December 2026.