The Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned a Railway Claims Tribunal decision and directed the Union of India to pay Rs 8 lakh compensation, with interest, to the family of a passenger who died after allegedly falling from a moving train in 2019. The ruling reaffirmed that the absence of a ticket on the deceased’s body or a direct eyewitness does not by itself defeat a claim when surrounding records support passenger status and an accidental railway death.
Justice Harkesh Manuja allowed an appeal filed by the family of Deepak Kumar, who died on July 3, 2019, after travelling from Rishikesh towards Ambala Cantt. The court set aside the December 20, 2021, order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which had dismissed the family’s claim for Rs 10 lakh.
According to the family’s account, Kumar had visited the Neelkanth Mahadev temple near Rishikesh with three companions. At Rishikesh railway station, he purchased a joint journey ticket for three people, including himself, for travel to Ambala Cantt. At around 9.15 pm, he told his wife by telephone that they had boarded the Barmer Express and would reach home during the night.
The companions boarded different compartments because of heavy passenger congestion. While the train was passing between Kesri and Barara stations, Kumar allegedly fell from the train following a sudden jerk and the movement of passengers. His body was later discovered and identified, with the ticket produced before the Government Railway Police on July 4, 2019.
The Railways opposed the claim, arguing that Kumar was not proved to be a bona fide passenger because no ticket had been recovered from his person. It also pointed out that the ticket covered three people although four companions were said to have travelled together. The Railways further argued that the injuries and the location of the body suggested that Kumar had been run over by a train rather than falling from one.
The High Court rejected the Tribunal’s conclusion that it was unreasonable for people travelling together to board different compartments. Justice Manuja said that this reasoning was based on conjecture. The court also held that the ticket’s prompt production before the police supported the family’s account and indicated that it was not introduced as an afterthought.
“The mere circumstance that one of the companions did not possess a ticket cannot be used to deny the claim of the deceased without establishing that the deceased himself was not a bona fide passenger,” the court stated, according to the report.
On the injuries, the court noted that the post-mortem report recorded multiple grievous injuries but that the medical officer had not ruled out a railway accident. It observed that an accidental fall from a moving train can result in serious or crush injuries, including when a passenger comes into contact with the wheels or tracks.
The court also noted that the Railways had not identified the train that allegedly ran over Kumar or examined a loco pilot, guard or other railway official to establish that version. It said the absence of an eyewitness could not be treated as fatal to a claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, when the surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous records supported the claim.
The Railways has been directed to deposit Rs 8 lakh with 9% annual interest from the date on which the claim application was filed until payment. The amount must be deposited within two months. If the Railways fails to deposit it within the stipulated three-month period, interest will rise to 12% per annum from the end of that period until realisation.
