Delhi High Court Restores Railway Compensation Claim; Holds Missing Ticket and Conflicting Guard Records Cannot Defeat Proof of Accidental Fall From Train
Delhi High Court Revives Railway Death Compensation Claim; Holds Non-Recovery of Ticket Alone Cannot Disprove Bona Fide Travel After Accidental Train Fall
Facts
The appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 July 2016 dismissing their compensation claim arising from the death of Raj Kumar @ Randhir. The appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
On 8 September 2014, the deceased was travelling with his brother from Bahadurgarh to New Delhi. According to the appellants, the deceased had purchased a railway ticket for both of them. As the train approached Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, he fell from the running train, suffered grievous injuries, was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and subsequently died.
The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim primarily because no valid journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. It also relied upon the testimony of AW-2/Durga Prasad and material forming part of the DRM report to conclude that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.
The appellants contended that the deceased had possessed a valid journey ticket but that it was lost in the accident. They relied upon the testimony of his brother, railway/police records and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Rina Devi to argue that mere non-recovery of a ticket does not establish that a passenger was travelling without authority.
The Railways, on the other hand, maintained that the deceased was attempting to board a moving train and fell because of his own negligence. It relied upon the Guard’s memo, rough journal and station diary describing him variously as an unauthorised person, trespasser or someone attempting to board the moving train.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger despite non-recovery of the railway ticket.
- Whether the claimants had discharged their initial burden of establishing bona fide travel.
- Whether the death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
- Whether the Guard’s conflicting descriptions of the occurrence were sufficient to establish that the deceased was a trespasser or was negligently attempting to board the moving train.
- Whether the Railways had proved that the case fell within any statutory exception under Section 124-A so as to defeat compensation.
Petitioner/Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket which had been lost during the accident.
They relied upon Union of India v. Rina Devi to contend that non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself, justify the conclusion that the victim was not a bona fide passenger.
They further relied upon:
- the testimony of AW-2/Durga Prasad, the deceased’s brother;
- police DD entries;
- the fact that the occurrence took place within railway premises; and
- contemporaneous accident records.
According to them, this material discharged the initial burden of proving bona fide travel.
The appellants also pointed out substantial inconsistencies in the railway Guard’s version. Different railway records described the deceased as having “jumped from the running train,” as a “trespasser,” and as someone “trying to board the running train.” They argued that such contradictory accounts could not conclusively establish negligence or trespass.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India supported the Tribunal’s decision.
It contended that the deceased was attempting to board a moving train and fell because of his own negligence.
The Railways relied upon:
- the Guard’s memo;
- the rough journal; and
- the Station Diary,
which referred to the deceased as an unauthorised person or trespasser and suggested that he had either collided with or attempted to board the moving train.
On this basis, the Railways maintained that the deceased was not entitled to statutory compensation.
Analysis of the Law
1. Non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive against bona fide passenger status
The High Court noted that no ticket was recovered from the deceased.
However, AW-2/Durga Prasad, who was admittedly travelling with him, stated that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket for two persons and had kept the ticket in his shirt pocket.
The Court reiterated the settled position that mere non-recovery of a railway ticket cannot by itself conclusively establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
It relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata v. Union of India, which clarified that a claimant can discharge the initial burden regarding bona fide travel by filing an affidavit, following which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut that case.
2. Brother’s testimony discharged the initial burden
The High Court held that Durga Prasad’s affidavit sufficiently discharged the initial burden resting on the claimants.
The Tribunal had rejected his evidence partly because he had not personally witnessed the actual purchase of the ticket and because it considered his conduct in leaving his injured brother with the Guard while making a telephone call unusual.
The High Court held that such factors might affect the weight to be attached to his testimony, but they could not completely negate his specific evidence that he had been travelling together with the deceased.
Accordingly, the initial burden of establishing bona fide passenger status stood discharged.
3. Railway records established that an accident occurred
The Court next examined whether the incident was an “untoward incident.”
It found that the contemporaneous materials—including DD entries, the Station Master’s memo, MLC and death report—consistently established that the deceased had suffered injuries in a railway accident and was immediately attended to by the Guard.
Thus, the occurrence of a railway accident itself was sufficiently established.
4. Conflicting Guard records could not establish trespass or deliberate jumping
The Tribunal had placed considerable reliance upon the Guard’s records.
The High Court, however, found that those records contained materially different descriptions of the event:
- one referred to the deceased as having “jumped from the running train”;
- another called him a “trespasser”;
- another suggested that he was “trying to board the running train”; and
- the initial memo referred to an unauthorised person being struck by the coach.
The Court held that these variations demonstrated uncertainty rather than certainty regarding how the accident actually occurred.
It also found it significant that the Guard had explained that his initial memo had been prepared in haste.
More importantly, the Guard was not examined before the Tribunal. His version was merely included in the DRM report.
Therefore, his statement could not be treated as conclusive evidence of the manner of the accident.
5. Railways failed to prove any statutory exception under Section 124-A
The High Court found that the Railways had not produced cogent evidence proving that the deceased’s death occurred under circumstances falling within any of the statutory exceptions contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
This was important because once the claimants established bona fide travel and circumstances consistent with an accidental fall, the Railways had to establish a legally recognised exception if it sought to avoid liability.
No such exception was proved.
Precedent Analysis
Union of India v. Rina Devi
The appellants relied upon Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.
The principle relied upon was that the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
The High Court accepted the broader principle that bona fide travel may be proved by other reliable evidence and cannot be rejected solely because the journey ticket is unavailable after the accident.
Lata v. Union of India
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350.
This judgment clarified the evidentiary burden in railway compensation cases.
The claimant may initially discharge the burden of proving bona fide travel through an affidavit or other supporting evidence. Once that initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the assertion.
Applying this principle, the High Court held that the deceased’s brother had successfully discharged the initial burden.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court considered the evidence cumulatively.
First, the deceased’s brother gave a specific account that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket for both passengers.
Second, the law does not permit non-recovery of a ticket to be treated as conclusive proof of ticketless travel.
Third, contemporaneous railway and medical records clearly established the occurrence of a railway accident.
Fourth, the Guard’s various versions were inconsistent and therefore incapable of conclusively establishing that the deceased was a trespasser or had deliberately jumped from the train.
Fifth, the Guard himself was never examined before the Tribunal, significantly reducing the evidentiary value of his account.
Finally, the Railways failed to establish any statutory exception under Section 124-A.
On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the deceased had sustained injuries in an accidental fall from the train, which constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment.
It held that:
- the deceased’s bona fide passenger status could not be rejected merely because the ticket was not recovered;
- the brother’s affidavit discharged the claimants’ initial burden;
- the Guard’s inconsistent records did not conclusively establish trespass, deliberate jumping or negligent boarding;
- the Railways failed to prove any statutory exception under Section 124-A; and
- the deceased’s accidental fall from the train constituted an untoward incident.
The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation payable.
The Tribunal was directed to ensure disbursement of the compensation within two months from receipt of the High Court’s order, and the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 11 September 2026.
Case Details
Case: Bharat & Anr. v. Union of India
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: FAO 287/2018
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Date: 21 August 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s rejection set aside; accidental train fall held to be an untoward incident; matter remanded for determination and disbursement of compensation within two months
