Son Gets ₹8 Lakh Rail Compensation After P&H HC Finds Father Died In Accidental Train Fall Despite Missing Ticket

The claimants alleged that Gurvinder Singh, aged about 58, was travelling from Amritsar to Jalandhar on 11 February 2019 when he accidentally fell from a running train between Dhilwan and Hamira railway stations. His body was found near the track on 13 February 2019. The claimants said the journey ticket had been lost in the incident. His wife and son filed a compensation claim; after the wife died during the proceedings, the son remained the surviving applicant.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that bona fide passenger status and an untoward incident had not been established, relying principally on the missing ticket, absence of an eyewitness, delay in discovery of the body and its assessment of the injuries. The son appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation for death or injury resulting from an untoward incident, subject to statutory exceptions; Section 123(c)(2) includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within “untoward incident”.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, non-recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, defeat a claim; the claimant must first place relevant facts on record, after which the onus shifts to the Railways and the claim is assessed on the evidence and attending circumstances.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, recognises the beneficial object of the legislation.

Rina Devi also supports awarding reasonable interest from the date the Railway Administration’s liability arises until payment.

The son’s testimony that he bought a ticket for his father and handed it to him, together with the statements recorded during the railway police enquiry, sufficiently supported the initial claim of bona fide passenger status. The ticket’s non-recovery was not conclusive, particularly given the pleaded loss and the circumstances in which the body was found; the Railways produced no witness to rebut the claim.

The body’s location on the Amritsar–Jalandhar route, the medical evidence concerning the time since death, and the injuries and material found on the body supported the alleged accidental fall. The Tribunal’s contrary inferences—including that the body must have been noticed earlier or that the injuries suggested another cause—were unsupported by evidence. The Railways also failed to establish an alternative cause of death or a statutory exception to liability.

In light of those findings, the Court considered remand on dependency unnecessary and held the surviving son entitled to compensation.

The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim was set aside. It awarded the appellant ₹8,00,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date the claim application was filed until realisation, payable within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. If payment was not made within that period, interest at 12% per annum would apply from its expiry until realisation. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with law.