Case at a Glance
A 60-year-old man died on 10 December 2022 near Sidhirampur railway station; his family said he fell from an EMU train after buying a valid ticket. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed their claim, concluding that he was not a bona fide passenger and had been hit by a train while crossing the track. The Delhi High Court set this aside, holding that non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive, that no eyewitness supported the ’crossing the track’ theory, and that under the no-fault scheme of Section 124-A a claimant need only show an untoward incident on a preponderance of probabilities. The case was remanded for assessment of compensation, to be disbursed within two months.
Rakesh Chandra, aged about 60, was travelling from Sidhirampur to Bilhaur by an EMU train, according to his wife, son and daughters, who said he had bought a valid ticket and fell from the train on 10 December 2022, dying on the spot. A Keyman reported to the Station Master, Kamalganj, at about 7:05 a.m. that a body was lying on the track between kilometre 116/19 and 116/20. A police General Diary entry recorded a letter attributed to one witness (AW-2) stating that the deceased had been hit by a train at about 6:00 a.m., and the Panchas recorded the same opinion.
By judgment dated 10 July 2024 the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death was not an ’untoward incident’ under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It relied on the DRM report, railway records, statements attributed to the train’s Loco Pilot and Guard, and discrepancies between the two claimant witnesses about when he was put on the train. The family appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a railway death claim be rejected because the ticket was not recovered and the Tribunal infers that the deceased was crossing the track, when no evidence directly establishes that version?
No-Fault Compensation Means the Whole Record, Not Isolated Gaps
On bona fide passenger status, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri followed Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2018) 05 SC CK 0022, (2019) 3 SCC 572, observing that ’the initial burden upon a claimant to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous’. The non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive; the testimony of the claimant witnesses about buying the ticket and boarding had to be weighed with the surrounding circumstances, and the discrepancies between them, while noted, were minor and did not justify rejecting their evidence on that ground alone. The DRM report’s conclusion that the deceased boarded without a ticket conflicted with the oral evidence and did not resolve how the incident happened.
On the untoward incident, the Court found that the location of the body, the Panchnama and the railway records showed a death involving a train, but no eyewitness established that the deceased was crossing the line: ’the conclusion that the deceased was crossing the railway line does not follow from these circumstances alone’. Even an accidental fall while boarding or alighting would be an untoward incident under Rina Devi. Relying on Rajpati v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540 and Smt. Pinki & Ors. v. Union of India, (2026) 07 DEL CK 1055 (FAO 166/2023, decided 30 July 2026), and referring to Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350 and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India, (2026) 09 SC CK 4582, 2026 INSC 1056, the Court stressed that Section 124-A is a no-fault provision: ’A claimant is not required to reconstruct every detail of an accident’ if the record as a whole shows, on a preponderance of probabilities, that death resulted from an untoward incident.
What the Court Actually Held
- Non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive against bona fide passenger status; the claimant’s initial burden is not onerous.
- The Tribunal’s inference that the deceased was crossing the track was unsupported by evidence.
- Under the no-fault scheme of Section 124-A, the manner of the incident must be judged from the entire record on a preponderance of probabilities.
- The Tribunal’s judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to assess compensation, to be disbursed within two months of receipt of the order; the matter is to be listed before the Tribunal on 3 February 2027.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Families of passengers who die after falling from crowded trains often cannot produce the ticket or an eyewitness; the ruling eases that evidentiary burden.
- It cautions Tribunals against substituting one unproven version (crossing the track) for the claimant’s account.
- It applies Union of India v. Rina Devi and recent Supreme Court rulings to everyday suburban rail accidents.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Railway Accident Victims
- A claim can succeed even if the ticket was not found on the body, if other evidence supports the journey.
- Collect the GD entry, Panchnama, Station Master’s memo and DRM report — the Court reads them together.
For Counsel
- Cite Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 on the light initial burden and on falls while boarding or alighting.
- Challenge Tribunal findings that rest on inference without eyewitness support, using Rajpati v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540.
- Treat minor inconsistencies among family witnesses as matters of weight, not grounds for rejection.
Key Takeaways
- Railway compensation under Section 124-A is no-fault.
- Missing ticket does not by itself defeat a claim.
- A ’crossing the track’ finding needs evidence, not just the location of the body.
- Compensation is to be assessed on remand and paid within two months.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I claim railway compensation if my relative’s ticket was not found?
Yes, it is possible. Following Rina Devi, the Delhi High Court held that non-recovery of the ticket is not conclusive and the claimant’s initial burden is light; other evidence of the journey can be considered.
What is an ’untoward incident’ under the Railways Act?
Section 123(c) defines it to include, among other things, the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Under Section 124-A the Railways must pay compensation for such incidents regardless of fault, subject to statutory exceptions.
How much compensation was awarded here?
The High Court did not fix the amount. It remanded the case to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law and directed disbursal within two months.
Conclusion
The judgment restores the claim of a widow and her children who were turned away on inference. By insisting that the no-fault principle be applied to the record as a whole, the Court keeps Section 124-A true to its welfare purpose.
Practical takeaway: In railway death claims, attack speculative Tribunal findings head-on — the Railways’ version needs evidence just as much as the claimant’s.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com