Phooli Devi vs Union Of India

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in OA/II(u)/DLI/398/2020whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation on account of the death of her son, Ramesh Meena (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”, came to be dismissed.

Briefly stated, on 13.11.2019, one Ramesh Meena (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling with his brother-in-law, Babulal, from Jatusana to Kund via Rewari. They had purchased Ticket No. UDA23916912 for two adult passengers and travelled upto Rewari, from where they boarded Passenger Train No.59720 for Kund. According to the appellant, the deceased remained in the train when Babulal got down at Kund. Later that day, the deceased was found dead near the railway line between Rewari and Khori.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment,contends that the Tribunal adopted a strict and restrictive approach in appreciating the evidence. It is submitted that the journey ticket for two passengers was duly verified from Jatusana Railway Station and the testimony of Babulal/AW-2, who had accompanied the deceased, could not have been discarded merely on account of his relationship with the deceased. It is further submitted that the circumstances in which the body was found, the post-mortem report and the material collected during the investigation support the case of an accidental fall from the train. Reliance is placed upon “Union of India v. Rina Devi”¹to contend that the initial burden upon the claimant is not onerous and the claim is to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim as there is no reliable evidence that the deceased fell from Train No.59720. It is submitted that neither the Loco Pilot nor the Guard had received any information regarding a passenger falling from the train and there was no alarm-chain pulling or report of any such occurrence at Khori Railway Station. It is further submitted that no ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the ticket was subsequently produced by Babulal, whose testimony was found doubtful by the Tribunal.

Coming first to the question whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the record shows that Ticket No. UDA23916912 was issued from Jatusana for two adult passengers for the journey to Kund via Rewari. The ticket was subsequently verified from the issuing station and its genuineness has not been disputed. The fact that the ticket was not recovered from the person of the deceased cannot, by itself, dislodge his status as a bona fide passenger, particularly when the ticket was produced by Babulal, who had accompanied the deceased on the journey. The initial burden having been discharged, the deceased is held to have been a bona fide passenger.

The Tribunal, however, discarded the testimony of Babulal/AW-2 principally on account of his relationship with the deceased and the circumstances in which he deboarded at Kund. In the opinion of this Court, these circumstances, even if they raise some doubt regarding his conduct, cannot by themselves render his testimony false, particularly when it finds corroboration from the journey ticket and the surrounding record. The finding of the Tribunal that Babulal was introduced as a false witness, therefore, cannot be upheld.

The next question is whether the deceased met with an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The Tribunal appears to have attached considerable significance to the fact that no person had witnessed the actual fall and that no contemporaneous information regarding such occurrence was received by the railway staff. In the opinion of this Court, neither circumstance can, by itself, lead to the conclusion that no such incident itself had occurred. An accidental fall from a moving train is, by its very nature, an occurrence which may not necessarily be witnessed by other passengers or noticed by railway personnel. The absence of direct evidence of the precise moment of the fall, therefore, cannot be converted into positive evidence against the claimant.

The approach has to be consistent with the nature of the liability contemplated under Section 124-A of the Act. The provision embodies a statutory scheme of strict liability and is intended to provide compensation in cases of “untoward incidents” without requiring the claimant to establish negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. In “Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar”^{22.(2008) 9 SCC 527}, the Supreme Court held that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

Similarly, in “Union of India v. Amit Parashar”³this Court, while considering the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, noted that the absence of direct evidence as to how the deceased fell, therefore, cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence that he did not fall from the train. The same principle assumes significance in the present case, where the Tribunal has substantially relied upon the absence of any contemporaneous report by the railway staff to draw an adverse inference against the occurrence itself.

The beneficial character of the statutory scheme also cannot be lost sight of while determining whether an occurrence constitutes an “untoward incident”. What is required is an assessment of the evidence as a whole on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The fact that the fall was not witnessed, or that no immediate information was received by the railway authorities, may explain the absence of direct or contemporaneous evidence, but cannot be elevated into positive evidence against the occurrence of the accident. In the present case, there is no cogent material establishing an alternative manner of death so as to displace the case of an accidental fall. The absence of an eyewitness or an immediate report to the railway authorities, therefore, cannot, by itself, defeat the claim.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 15.10.2026.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.