Uncertainty regarding the train’s identity cannot defeat compensation where ticket and fall are established.

The appellant, aged approximately 21 years, purchased a general-class railway ticket from Gorakhpur to Ludhiana and boarded the Jan Sewa Express on 2 July 2013. On 3 July 2013, near Jagadhari, he allegedly fell from the running train after being pushed by co-passengers amid heavy rush. He suffered severe injuries, resulting in amputation of his left leg below the knee and right leg at the knee. He was treated initially at Government Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, and thereafter at PGIMER, Chandigarh.

The appellant claimed compensation of ₹10,00,000 under the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the grounds that the ticket particulars did not correspond with the appellant’s statement to the GRP, the ticket appeared to be procured, and the evidence allegedly indicated that he had fallen from Train No. 15210 rather than Train No. 15209. The Tribunal, however, found that the injuries fell within the scheduled category under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

In appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant contended that the railway’s own DRM Report recorded verification of the ticket as genuine and that the occurrence of a person falling from a running train was established by railway records.