1. Appeal against dismissal of compensation claim for death from accidental fall from running train – Issues of untoward incident and bona fide passenger under Railways Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
ANITA DEVI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
FAO-56/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajan Sood, Ashima Sood, Megha Sood
For the Respondents: None
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajan Sood, Ashima Sood, Megha Sood
For the Respondents: None
Under the Railways Act, 1989, the claimant's initial burden to prove an untoward incident and bona fide travel can be discharged by affidavit and circumstances; non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive, and the Railways must rebut with cogent evidence.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124-A - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Untoward incident - Bona fide passenger - Compensation for death - Burden of proof - The initial burden on claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit and placing relevant circumstances on record; thereafter the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut - Mere non-recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased is not conclusive to deny compensation - Provisions of Section 124-A are beneficial legislation and must be construed liberally - Once an untoward incident is established, liability of Railways is strict unless statutory exceptions apply. (Paras 12, 13, 16)
(B) Evidence - Probative value - A departmental inquiry report (DRM report) lacking supporting evidence and not based on eyewitness account cannot override contemporaneous material such as Station Master memo, panchnama and post-mortem report - Statement of loco pilot that “no untoward incident was reported” does not negate possibility of accidental fall. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court may set aside order if Tribunal adopts unduly rigid standard of proof, overlooks beneficial object of Act and relies on conjectural material while ignoring contemporaneous record. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
On 27.04.2018, the deceased was travelling by train from Phaphund to Ghaziabad holding a valid ticket. Due to heavy rush and push near the gate, he accidentally fell from the running train near Ekdil Railway Station and died. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger (no ticket recovered) and the incident was not an ‘untoward incident’. The appellants appealed.
Findings of Court:
The death occurred in the course of a railway accident and squarely falls within the definition of an ‘untoward incident’. The appellants discharged their initial burden through the affidavit of AW-2 who witnessed purchase of ticket and boarding. The Railways failed to rebut the same. The Tribunal’s reliance on the DRM report and loco pilot’s statement was misplaced. The impugned judgment is set aside and matter remanded to Tribunal to assess compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the incident constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act, 1989? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
Ratio Decidendi: The beneficial provisions of Section 124-A require liberal construction. The initial burden on the claimant can be discharged by affidavit and relevant circumstances; non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive. The Railways must produce rebuttal evidence. In this case, the contemporaneous records (Station Master memo, panchnama, post-mortem) and testimony of the uncle established the accidental fall and bona fide travel, which the Railways failed to rebut. Result : Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for assessment of compensation within two months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimant argued evidence proved accidental fall and bona fide travel; Railways disputed based on lack of ticket and loco pilot's negative report. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Appeal allowed – Tribunal order set aside – Matter remanded for compensation assessment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Is non-recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased conclusive to deny compensation?
No, mere non-recovery of ticket is not conclusive; the claimant can discharge initial burden by affidavit, shifting onus to Railways to rebut. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
5. What is the evidentiary value of a departmental DRM report and loco pilot statement in a railway accident claim?
DRM report has low probative value without supporting evidence; loco pilot's statement that no incident was reported does not negate possibility of accidental fall. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. What constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 124-A of the Railways Act?
Death from accidental fall from a running train, established by contemporaneous evidence, qualifies; the provision is beneficial and must be construed liberally. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 )
7. What is the burden of proof in a compensation claim under the Railways Act?
Claimant must discharge initial burden by affidavit and relevant circumstances; then burden shifts to Railways to rebut; failure to rebut results in presumption in favour of claimant. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. Can minor discrepancies in witness testimony be a ground to discard entire evidence?
No, minor discrepancies relating to timing or platform do not warrant discarding consistent core testimony regarding purchase of ticket and commencement of journey. (Para 13 )
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/132/2019, titled as “Smt. Anita Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India”.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged incident an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
3. None appears for the respondent.
4. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 27.04.2018, one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Phaphund to Ghaziabad on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is the case of the appellants that during the course of the said journey, owing to heavy rush and push of the passengers near the gate, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train near Ekdil Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which he died.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in disregarding the evidence on record, which clearly establishes that the deceased suffered injuries in a railway accident. It is submitted that the Station Master memo, panchnama proceedings consistently record that the dead body was found lying on the side of the railway line at Ekdil station. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report records ante-mortem injuries and opines the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage due to injuries, which is consistent with a fall from a running train. It is further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly discarded the testimony of Sh. Rajpal Singh, who had deposed that he had accompanied the deceased to Phaphund Railway Station, and had witnessed the purchase of the journey ticket and made the deceased board the train.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during jamatalashi and therefore the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the loco pilot, “no untoward incident was reported” during the relevant time, and thus, the case of accidental fall is not established. It is also contended that there are inconsistencies in the version of the appellants with regard to the train number and therefore the claim has rightly been rejected.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration are whether the incident in question constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act and whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
9. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the record clearly reflects that the first information relayed by keyman at Ekdil Railway Station, Suman Kumar Singh, regarding the dead body was sent to the Station Master on 27.04.2018, at 13:00 hours, which notes that the deceased was found lying on the side of the up line between KM No. 1145/23-25, near Ekdil Railway Station, and there is thus, no material to indicate that he was “run over” while crossing the railway line.
10. The Tribunal has, however, proceeded to rely upon the DRM report to conclude that the sequence of events is uncertain and that the deceased was not travelling by train. A perusal of the said report shows that it is based on internal inquiry and not on any eyewitness account. The report itself does not establish any alternative manner of occurrence and merely records absence of ticket. Such a report, being in the nature of a departmental document, cannot override the contemporaneous materia
