No Ticket Found, Yet Friend’s Testimony Of Buying One Helps Parents Win Rail Compensation For Son’s Fatal Train Fall: P&H HC

The appellants, parents of Hardeep Singh, challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of their claim for compensation arising from his death on 7 August 2014.

They alleged that Hardeep had bought a ticket for travel from New Delhi to Ambala City and accidentally fallen from a train.

The Tribunal found against them, relying on the non-recovery of a ticket and a DRM inquiry report attributing his death to crossing the railway tracks.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal to the High Court.

Under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, accidental falling from a passenger train is an untoward incident for which the railway administration is liable, subject to the statutory exceptions; liability does not depend on wrongful act, neglect, or default by the railway administration.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, and Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 426, recognise the beneficial character of the statutory scheme.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410, the applicable compensation is determined by comparing the amount prescribed on the accident date, with reasonable interest, against the amount prescribed on the date of the award.

Rina Devi further states that interest may run from the date the railway liability arises until payment.

AW-2 testified that he purchased the ticket and handed it to Hardeep; the Court held that the ticket’s non-recovery did not, by itself, establish that Hardeep was travelling without one.

His call letter for a physical test at Ambala, the Station Master’s memo, and the timing and location of the body’s discovery supported the appellants’ account.

The GRP final report supported death following a fall from a train, while the DRM report was unsupported by eyewitness, Guard, or Loco Pilot evidence, and its author was not examined.

The Court therefore found the appellants had established bona fide passenger status and an untoward incident; the respondent had not proved a statutory exception.

Applying the compensation principles in Rina Devi and Radha Yadav, it directed payment of the applicable amount with interest.

The appellants were awarded Rs. 4,00,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realisation, 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; delay would attract interest at 12% per annum from expiry of that period until realisation.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount among eligible dependants in accordance with law.