Delhi High Court Denies Railway Compensation for Fatal Fall; Holds Ticket Was for Different Train and Evidence Showed Attempt to Deboard Moving Train Negligently
Delhi High Court Denies Compensation for Fatal Train Accident; Finds No Valid Travel Authority and Evidence of Attempted Deboarding From Moving Train
Facts
The appellants, Naresh Kumar and another, filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 15 September 2023 in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/02/2022. The Tribunal had dismissed their compensation claim arising from the death of Vipul Kumar.
On 2 November 2021, Vipul Kumar was travelling from Shahjahanpur to Moradabad on the strength of a reserved journey ticket. According to the appellants, because the scheduled train was running late, he instead boarded Train No. 05211, Jan Nayak Express, after allegedly obtaining an Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) from the Travelling Ticket Examiner upon payment of additional charges.
While Jan Nayak Express was passing through Seohara Railway Station, the deceased fell from the running train and sustained fatal injuries.
Although his original reserved railway ticket was recovered from his body, the alleged EFT permitting him to travel on Train No. 05211 was not recovered. The appellants claimed that the EFT had been lost during the accident.
The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor had his death resulted from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.
The appellants therefore approached the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the deceased could be regarded as a bona fide passenger of Train No. 05211 despite the absence of the alleged EFT.
- Whether the reserved ticket recovered from the deceased, which related to Train No. 04265, was sufficient to establish authorised travel on Train No. 05211.
- Whether the principle that mere non-recovery of a ticket does not defeat bona fide passenger status applied to these facts.
- Whether the deceased accidentally fell from the train, thereby constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
- Whether the eyewitness account showing that the deceased attempted to deboard the moving train brought the case outside compensable accidental-fall liability.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because he had boarded Train No. 05211 only after obtaining an EFT from the TTE upon payment of the prescribed additional amount.
They argued that the fact that the EFT was not recovered after the accident should not automatically negate his status as a bona fide passenger.
They further contended that the deceased had suffered an accidental fall from the train and that the occurrence therefore qualified as an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
In support of the bona fide passenger argument, reliance was placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi, which recognises that mere non-recovery of a railway ticket does not, by itself, establish that the passenger was travelling without authority.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India opposed the appeal and argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Train No. 05211.
The Railways pointed out that the only reserved ticket recovered from the deceased related to Train No. 04265, whereas the accident occurred while he was travelling on Train No. 05211.
No EFT or other travel authority permitting him to travel on Train No. 05211 was recovered or produced before the Tribunal.
The respondent further relied upon the fact that Train No. 05211 had no scheduled stoppage at Seohara Railway Station.
Most importantly, eyewitness Monti Kumar, the Gateman, stated that he saw the deceased attempting to deboard the moving train.
The Railways therefore argued that the injuries were attributable to the deceased’s own conduct and relied upon the statutory exception concerning self-inflicted injury under Section 124-A.
Reliance was also placed upon Hemant Kumar @ Happy v. Union of India.
Analysis of the Law
1. Bona fide passenger status was not established
The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellants’ version did not inspire confidence.
The only journey ticket actually recovered from the deceased was for Train No. 04265, not the train on which he was travelling when the accident occurred.
Although the appellants claimed that an EFT had subsequently been purchased from the TTE permitting travel on Train No. 05211, no such EFT was recovered or otherwise produced in evidence.
Accordingly, there was no documentary material demonstrating that the deceased had lawful authority to travel on the train involved in the accident.
2. Rina Devi principle did not assist the appellants
The appellants relied upon Union of India v. Rina Devi to argue that non-recovery of the EFT should not defeat their claim.
The High Court distinguished that principle.
It accepted that mere non-recovery of a journey ticket does not, standing alone, automatically destroy a claimant’s case regarding bona fide travel.
However, the present matter involved an additional circumstance: a railway ticket was actually recovered, but it related to a different train.
The alleged authority to travel on Train No. 05211 was the EFT, and no such document was produced.
The Court therefore held that the case stood on a different footing from one involving mere loss or non-recovery of the passenger’s only journey ticket.
3. Accident was not accepted as an unexplained accidental fall
The Court then considered how the deceased came to fall from the train.
It was undisputed that Train No. 05211 had no scheduled stoppage at Seohara Railway Station.
That fact became important when considered together with the evidence of Gateman Monti Kumar.
Unlike a case resting merely upon uncertain or contradictory railway records, there was a direct eyewitness account.
The Gateman stated that he had actually seen the deceased attempting to deboard from the moving train.
4. Eyewitness account was consistent with the DRM report
The High Court considered the Gateman’s testimony consistent with the surrounding circumstances.
The DRM report also concluded that the deceased had attempted to deboard the moving train and consequently met with the fatal accident because of his own negligence.
Thus, the Court was not confronted with an unexplained fall where accidental falling was the probable inference.
Instead, there was positive evidence regarding how the incident occurred.
This evidence materially weakened the appellants’ assertion that the deceased simply suffered an accidental fall from a running train.
Precedent Analysis
Union of India v. Rina Devi
The principal precedent relied upon by the appellants was Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.
The High Court recognised the principle that:
mere non-recovery of a railway ticket does not, by itself, negate the status of a bona fide passenger.
However, the Court held that this principle did not decide the present case because the circumstances were materially different.
Here:
- a ticket was recovered from the deceased;
- that ticket related to a different train, Train No. 04265;
- the deceased was travelling on Train No. 05211; and
- the alleged EFT authorising travel on Train No. 05211 was never recovered or produced.
Consequently, Rina Devi could not be used to bridge the evidentiary gap regarding the deceased’s authority to travel on the actual train involved in the accident.
Hemant Kumar @ Happy v. Union of India
The respondent relied upon Hemant Kumar @ Happy v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 4219 in support of its argument that injuries suffered while attempting to deboard a moving train because of the passenger’s own conduct would not attract compensation in the manner claimed.
The judgment records the respondent’s reliance on this precedent, though the Delhi High Court ultimately resolved the appeal primarily on the factual material before it, particularly the Gateman’s eyewitness account and the DRM report.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court relied on two independent factual deficiencies in the appellants’ case.
First, bona fide travel on Train No. 05211 was not established.
The recovered reserved ticket concerned Train No. 04265. The appellants’ case depended upon the assertion that the deceased subsequently obtained an EFT from the TTE, but that EFT was neither recovered nor otherwise proved.
Second, the circumstances of the death did not support the appellants’ claim of a simple accidental fall.
Train No. 05211 had no scheduled stoppage at Seohara. An independent Gateman stated that he saw the deceased attempting to deboard while the train was moving, and this account was consistent with the DRM report.
The Court therefore found insufficient reason to disagree with the Railway Claims Tribunal’s conclusions.
This is materially different from cases where the ticket alone is missing but there is otherwise credible evidence of authorised travel, or where railway records contain inconsistent accounts about how the passenger fell.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal’s rejection of compensation.
The Court held that:
- the only recovered ticket was for Train No. 04265, whereas the deceased was travelling on Train No. 05211;
- the alleged EFT authorising his travel on Train No. 05211 was never recovered or produced;
- the rule that mere non-recovery of a ticket cannot defeat bona fide passenger status was therefore distinguishable;
- Train No. 05211 had no scheduled halt at Seohara;
- the Gateman had witnessed the deceased attempting to deboard the moving train;
- the DRM report supported that version; and
- there was consequently no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s dismissal of the compensation claim.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
Case: Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: FAO 65/2024
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Date: 21 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; Railway Claims Tribunal’s rejection of compensation upheld on failure to establish bona fide travel on the actual train and evidence that the deceased attempted to deboard the moving train.
