Delhi High Court Holds Railway Accident Compensation Cannot Be Denied When a Verified Journey Ticket Is Recovered From the Deceased’s Belongings
Delhi High Court Says Verified Journey Ticket Recovered From Deceased’s Belongings Cannot Be Ignored in Railway Accident Compensation Claim
Facts
The appellants, Babli and others, filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment dated 14 January 2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
The claim arose from the death of Rajeev Kumar. According to the appellants, on 31 May 2016, Rajeev Kumar was travelling from Nagina to Aghwanpur by Train No. 54464, Agra-Rishikesh Passenger, on the strength of Journey Ticket No. G-13340767.
It was alleged that when the train reached Kanth Railway Station, Rajeev Kumar accidentally fell from the moving train and suffered grievous injuries. He was initially taken for treatment and was later admitted to Cosmos Hospital, Moradabad, where he died during the intervening night of 31 May 2016 and 1 June 2016.
The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the deceased had suffered injuries due to a fall from Train No. 54464 and decided the issue of “untoward incident” in favour of the claimants. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger.
The appellants approached the Delhi High Court contending that the deceased’s journey ticket had been recovered from his belongings during panchnama proceedings and its issuance was verified by the railway authorities.
Issues
- Whether the deceased Rajeev Kumar was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989.
- Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim despite accepting that the deceased fell from the train.
- Whether the alleged statement of the deceased that he was travelling on a lost MST could override the later recovery of a verified journey ticket.
- Whether the Tribunal could reject the ticket merely by comparing its issuance time with the scheduled departure time of the train.
- Whether the matter required remand for assessment of compensation.
Petitioner’s/Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the panchnama proceedings clearly recorded recovery of Journey Ticket No. G-13340767 dated 31 May 2016 from the belongings of the deceased.
They submitted that the ticket was for travel from Nagina to Moradabad and that its issuance was verified by the railway authorities.
The appellants contended that the Tribunal wrongly relied on an alleged statement attributed to the deceased during treatment, where he allegedly said that he was travelling on an MST which was lost in the incident.
They argued that the alleged statement did not bear the deceased’s signature or thumb impression.
It was further submitted that no medical record or doctor’s opinion was produced to show that the deceased, who had suffered serious injuries and died shortly thereafter, was conscious, oriented and medically fit to make such a statement.
The appellants also argued that due to the serious injuries and treatment administered, the deceased may have been under sedation and may have mistakenly referred to his journey ticket as an MST.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India supported the Tribunal’s judgment.
It argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
The respondent contended that immediately after the incident, no journey ticket was found from the deceased.
It further argued that the deceased himself allegedly stated during treatment that he was travelling on an MST which had been lost.
The respondent also submitted that the ticket relied upon by the appellants was recovered only on the next day, 1 June 2016, and that the circumstances relating to its issuance made it doubtful.
According to the respondent, the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and no interference was required.
Analysis of the Law
The Delhi High Court noted that the accidental fall from the train was no longer in dispute. The Tribunal itself had held that the deceased had fallen from Train No. 54464 DN and that railway and police records confirmed the fall at Kanth Railway Station.
Therefore, the only surviving question was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
The Court held that the Tribunal had disbelieved the appellants’ case mainly on two grounds: first, the alleged statement of the deceased that he was travelling on an MST which was lost; and second, the doubt regarding the ticket because of its time of issuance.
The Court found that the panchnama proceedings dated 1 June 2016 specifically recorded the recovery of Journey Ticket No. G-13340767 dated 31 May 2016. The ticket was also verified by the railway authorities, who confirmed its issuance from the concerned booking office.
The Court held that the alleged statement of the deceased could not be given overriding evidentiary value because it did not bear his signature or thumb impression. Further, no medical evidence was produced to show that he was fit to make a statement after suffering serious injuries.
On the ticket timing issue, the Court held that the scheduled departure time of a train cannot by itself prove the actual running position of the train on a particular date. No Train Signal Register or operational record showing actual movement of the train was produced before the Tribunal.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, where the Supreme Court held that the initial burden lies on the claimant to establish relevant facts, which may be discharged by filing an affidavit. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways, and the issue must be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstances.
Applying this principle, the Court held that the appellants were on a stronger footing than a case involving mere non-recovery of a ticket. Here, the panchnama recorded recovery of the journey ticket, and the ticket was verified by railway authorities.
Therefore, the Railways could not defeat the claim merely on suspicion, especially when it failed to produce operational records capable of showing the actual movement of the train.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the recovery of the verified journey ticket from the belongings of the deceased was a material circumstance directly bearing on his status as a bona fide passenger.
The Court found that the DRM inquiry report substantially relied on the alleged statement attributed to the deceased and the claim that no ticket was initially found. However, the later panchnama recording the ticket and its verification formed part of the documentary chain and had to be properly weighed.
The Court held that the alleged statement of the deceased was unreliable for the purpose of rejecting the claim because it was unsigned, did not bear his thumb impression, and was not supported by medical proof of fitness to make a statement.
The Court also held that the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the ticket being doubtful was inferential because it was based only on the scheduled departure time of the train. In the absence of a Train Signal Register or any actual running record, the Tribunal could not assume that the train had already departed before the ticket was issued.
Since the accidental fall was established and the verified ticket was recovered from the deceased’s belongings, the Court held that the appellants had discharged the initial burden of proving bona fide travel.
The material relied upon by the Railways was insufficient to rebut that position.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal.
The Court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 14 January 2020.
It held that the appellants had discharged the initial burden of showing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and the Railways had failed to rebut the same.
The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for assessment of compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law.
The Tribunal was requested to direct disbursal of the compensation within two months from receipt of the High Court’s order. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 17 July 2026.
Case Details
Case: Babli & Ors. v. Union of India
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: FAO 210 of 2024
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Date: 07 July 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s judgment set aside; matter remanded for assessment and disbursal of railway accident compensation.
