IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 Date of decision : 12.09.2025 Habiba Khatoon and others ...... Appellants versus Union of India ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ujval Mittal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent-UOI.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dated 10.05.2018 whereby claim application of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of Jakir Ahmad son of Shri Jahir Ahmad in an alleged untoward incident was dismissed.

2. The facts pleaded by the claimants are that on 13.09.2015, the deceased was travelling from Ludhiana to Sirhind on a valid ticket. The train however had no scheduled stoppage at Sirhind. When the train slowed down near Sirhind railway station, his co-traveller Mohd. Asfaq managed to alight, but the deceased could not and continued his journey up to Rajpura. When the train reached Rajpura railway station and was moving at a slow speed, the deceased attempted to alight, but accidentally fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the way to the hospital.

3. The respondent-Railways contested the claim petition denying the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger. It was pleaded that the incident admittedly occurred at Rajpura, whereas the deceased allegedly held a ticket from Ludhiana to Sirhind. The tickets produced by the applicants were said to be procured ones. It was further argued that the applicants failed to disclose the train number and name which itself shows that a false claim petition had been filed. The documents filed were also not certified copies and hence not admissible. On these grounds, it was urged that the applicants had no locus to maintain the claim application.

4. As per the Railways in the DRM enquiry, no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during fard jamatalashi conducted by the GRP. The tickets subsequently produced were of travel from Sirhind to Ludhiana and Ludhiana to Sirhind, whereas the accident admittedly occurred at Rajpura yard. The discrepancy proved that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the claim was false.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish the bona fide status of the deceased and that his death resulted from his own negligent attempt to alight from a moving train, which fell within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim. It is contended that the deceased did possess a valid ticket for travel. In accidental fall cases, it is common that the ticket is either lost, destroyed or not recovered. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the absence of ticket recovery is misplaced in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018) 3 SCC 319. Counsel further submits that minor contradictions in ticket particulars or non-mention of the exact train number cannot overshadow the fact that the deceased fell from the train and died in the course of his railway journey.

7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Railways reiterates that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger. It is submitted that the tickets shown were unrelated to the journey ending at Rajpura, that the claimants had not furnished reliable evidence such as certified copies of official records. The DRM enquiry also held against the claimants. Therefore, there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

9. The limited issue requiring consideration is:-

(i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger; and (ii) whether his death falls within the scope of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c