P&H HC Awards Compensation To Family Of Man Who Fell Trying To Board Another Coach, Rejecting Tribunal’s “Planted Ticket” Finding

The deceased, Bhagelu, was alleged to have been travelling with three co-passengers on a joint Tatkal ticket from Ludhiana to Gonda.

At Ambala Cantt, he fell on Platform No. 1 while attempting to board another coach and died.

His sons’ claim for compensation was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which found that he was not a bona fide passenger and imposed special costs of ₹50,000 on the claimants.

On appeal, the High Court considered the co-passenger’s testimony, GRP records, medical evidence and the Railways’ inquiry report verifying the ticket.

The judgment identifies the incident date as 28 April 2015 in its factual account, but refers to 28 May 2015 in its discussion of compensation.

Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines “dependant”; Section 123(c)(2) includes an accidental fall of a passenger from a train within “untoward incident”; and Section 124-A imposes liability for such incidents subject to its statutory exceptions.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, non-recovery of a ticket from the deceased does not, by itself, defeat a claim; compensation is assessed by comparing the amount applicable at the time of the accident, with reasonable interest, against the amount prescribed at the time of the award.

Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410, was relied on in applying that compensation principle.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, and Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, support the principle that mere passenger negligence does not bar liability under Section 124-A unless a statutory exception applies.

Rina Devi also recognises that interest may run from the date the Railways’ liability arises until payment.

The Court accepted the co-passenger’s evidence that the deceased travelled on the joint ticket, corroborated by the GRP records and the Railways’ own verification of the ticket as valid for four passengers.

It held that neither non-recovery of the ticket nor the name-spelling discrepancy displaced that evidence, and rejected the Tribunal’s reliance on the passengers’ religious identities as irrelevant.

The GRP account, co-passenger testimony, inquiry report and final medical opinion established that the deceased died from injuries sustained in an accidental fall while attempting to board the train.

The Court further held that alleged negligence in changing coaches did not fall within Section 124-A’s exceptions.

For quantum, it applied the comparison principle in Rina Devi and Radha Yadav.

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an untoward incident.

It awarded ₹4,00,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization, or ₹8,00,000, whichever was higher.

The Railways were directed to deposit the amount within three months; failure to do so would attract interest at 12% per annum from expiry of that period until realization.

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