Man Found Dead On Tracks: Delhi HC Revives Family’s Compensation Claim, Says Railway Records Didn’t Prove He Was Crossing

The appellants, the deceased’s wife, son and daughters, sought compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, alleging that the deceased had purchased a ticket, boarded an EMU train on 10 December 2022, and accidentally fallen from it, sustaining fatal injuries.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did not result from an “untoward incident”; it inferred that he had been hit by a train while crossing the railway line, relying on railway records and discrepancies in the witnesses’ evidence.

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

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the initial burden on a claimant to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous; the claim must be assessed in light of the attending circumstances, and non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive by itself.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India on that principle.

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident,” while Section 124-A provides for compensation on a no-fault basis, subject to statutory exceptions.

Under Rina Devi, an accidental fall from a train may constitute an untoward incident; the manner of occurrence is to be determined from the evidence as a whole.

Rajpati v. Union of India and Smt. Pinki v. Union of India further caution against inferring that a deceased was crossing the tracks solely from the body’s location or the injuries sustained.

The son’s testimony that the deceased had bought a ticket and the son-in-law’s supporting evidence meant that the ticket’s non-recovery could not, on its own, defeat bona fide passenger status.

Although the body was found on the track, the Panchnama and railway records did not contain direct evidence that the deceased was crossing the line; nor did the statements attributed to the Loco Pilot and Guard establish that conclusion.

The Court considered the discrepancies in the son-in-law’s evidence and the contemporaneous records, but held that they did not prove the Tribunal’s alternative account of the incident.

The DRM report’s conclusion that the deceased had been travelling without a ticket did not resolve the evidentiary gaps, and an accidental fall while boarding or deboarding could still fall within the statutory meaning of an untoward incident.

On the cumulative evidence, the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim could not stand.

It remanded the matter for the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and directed disbursement within two months of receipt of the order; the matter was to be listed before the Tribunal on 3 February 2027.