Passenger Killed After Falling From Meerut Shuttle: Delhi HC Finds Family Entitled To Compensation, Remands Tribunal To Fix Amount

The appellants sought compensation for the death of Anil Kumar, who allegedly fell from a moving train while travelling with his friend, Mahesh Kumar, and was then struck by a train on an adjoining track.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, disbelieving the friend’s testimony and relying, among other matters, on the absence of tickets, an amendment to the stated destination and a death-report entry suggesting suicide.

The appellants appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

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

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers is an “untoward incident”; Section 124-A imposes compensation liability for death resulting from such an incident irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default by the Railway Administration, subject to the statutory exceptions.

Applying Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that the claimant’s initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous and that non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive.

It also relied on Rajpati v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540, and Smt. Pinki & Ors. v. Union of India, FAO 166/2023, decided 30 July 2026, for the principle that the manner of occurrence must be assessed cumulatively and cannot be determined solely from the body’s location or condition.

The evidence is assessed on a preponderance of probabilities, consistently with the Act’s beneficial purpose.

Mahesh Kumar’s evidence that he purchased two tickets and travelled with the deceased was direct evidence of the journey; the tickets’ non-recovery was not conclusive, particularly given the evidence that the deceased’s body was mutilated.

The destination amendment was allowed with the respondent’s consent, so it did not justify an adverse inference.

Nor did the Tribunal’s conclusion that the pleaded sequence was improbable follow merely from the tracks’ different gauges, as there was no evidence establishing the track configuration or physical impossibility of the account.

The death report recorded only a possibility of suicide, unsupported by material sufficient to establish a statutory exception; the circumstances had to be considered cumulatively.

On the applicable standard, the Court found the deceased’s bona fide passenger status and death in an untoward incident established.

It remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law and directed that the amount be disbursed within two months of receipt of the order.

The matter was listed before the Tribunal on 22 December 2026.