P&H HC Grants Parents Compensation For Son’s Fatal Train Fall, Relying On Father’s Same-Day Account Despite No Ticket Being Found

The appellants, parents of the deceased, challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of their claim for compensation arising from his death on 9 June 2013.

They alleged that he had purchased a ticket at Jagadhri and accidentally fallen from a passenger train while travelling towards Ambala Cantt.

The Tribunal rejected the claim, relying principally on the absence of a recovered ticket, the departmental inquiry report, and the nature of the injuries.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes no-fault liability on the railway administration for death or injury caused by an untoward incident; Section 123(c)(2) includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant bears an initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status, which may be discharged by an affidavit setting out relevant facts; the burden then shifts to the Railways, and non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive

The evidence is assessed on the balance of probabilities, and the Railways bear the burden of establishing an exception under the proviso to Section 124-A.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar supports a liberal construction of the beneficial statutory scheme, while Jameela explains its no-fault basis

Under Rina Devi and Radha Yadav v. Union of India, compensation applicable at the time of the accident, with reasonable interest, is compared with the amount prescribed at the time of the award, and the higher amount is payable.

The father’s testimony that the deceased had bought a ticket and boarded a train was corroborated by his contemporaneous statement to the GRP, and the place where the body was found was consistent with the asserted route.

Given the body’s mutilated condition and the missing shirt, the absence of a ticket did not conclusively establish ticketless travel; the departmental inquiry report, unsupported by examined witnesses, did not rebut the claimants’ evidence.

The Tribunal’s inference that the deceased was run over while crossing the tracks was unsupported by medical or eyewitness evidence.

The post-mortem report did not exclude a railway accident, and the Railways produced no evidence of track-crossing or of any statutory exception to liability.

The record established the appellants’ relationship to the deceased; the widow’s non-joinder did not defeat their claim, and remand was unwarranted.

The Railways were directed to pay compensation of ₹4,00,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization, or ₹8,00,000, whichever was higher.

The amount was to be deposited within three months of receipt of the judgment; on default, interest at 12% per annum would apply from expiry of that period until realization.

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