Delhi HC Sends Family’s Rail-Death Claim For Compensation Assessment, Says Missing Ticket Alone Cannot Defeat It

The appellants, the deceased’s parents and brother, claimed that Kushal Kumar had purchased a ticket and was travelling from Dadri to Aligarh on 11 November 2017 when he accidentally fell from a passenger train near Khurja and died

The Railways contested the claim, relying on the absence of a recovered ticket, the location of the body on the UP main line, and the medical and railway records as suggesting that the deceased had been run over by an unidentified train

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, questioning the deceased’s bona fide passenger status and the account of AW-2, Rahul

The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within the definition of an “untoward incident”; Section 124-A provides for no-fault compensation for death or injury resulting from such an incident, subject to its specified exceptions.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, non-recovery of a ticket is not by itself conclusive: once claimants establish foundational facts indicating bona fide travel, the claim is assessed on the attending circumstances and the preponderance of probabilities, with the burden shifting to the Railways to rebut it.

The Court also cited Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India on assessing bona fide passenger status.

The Court also cited Surendra Prasad Verma v. Union of India, Dharmvir v. Union of India and Reshma v. Union of India in considering delayed discovery, the circumstances of a railway accident, and the applicable no-fault scheme.

The precise mechanics of an accident need not be proved by eyewitness testimony where the evidence and surrounding circumstances establish the occurrence on a preponderance of probabilities.

The Court held that the missing ticket could not, by itself, disprove bona fide travel, particularly given the appellants’ consistent account that the ticket was lost in the incident; the doubts about AW-2 also had to be considered alongside the entire record.

The railway records established that the deceased’s body was found on the track and that he had sustained fatal injuries, but did not establish that he had been run over while crossing the track or otherwise present for a purpose unrelated to train travel.

The body’s location, the estimated time since death, and the fact that it was discovered the following morning did not conclusively establish the manner or timing of death.

Applying the statutory no-fault scheme and the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, the Court rejected the Tribunal’s reliance on those circumstances as sufficient grounds to dismiss the claim.

It remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and directed that the amount be disbursed within two months of receipt of the order; the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 24 February 2027.