Phooli Devi Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
No Eyewitness to the Fall, Yet Railway Compensation Cannot Be Denied: Delhi High Court
Absence of Eyewitness Cannot Defeat Railway Compensation Claim
The Delhi High Court has held that absence of an eyewitness to a passenger falling from a moving train, non-recovery of the ticket from the deceased’s body and absence of an immediate report to the railway authorities cannot, by themselves, defeat a claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. An accidental fall from a moving train may occur unnoticed, and therefore, the absence of direct evidence cannot be converted into positive evidence against the claimant.
Background of the Case
On 13 November 2019, Ramesh Meena was travelling with his brother-in-law, Babulal, from Jatusana to Kund via Rewari. They purchased a single railway ticket bearing No. UDA23916912 for two adult passengers. After reaching Rewari, they boarded Passenger Train No.59720 for Kund.
According to the claimant, Babulal got down at Kund while Ramesh Meena remained in the train. Later on the same day, Ramesh Meena was found dead near the railway line between Rewari and Khori. His mother, Phooli Devi, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on the ground that her son had died due to an accidental fall from a passenger train, constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim. It doubted the testimony of Babulal primarily because he was related to the deceased and because of the circumstances in which he claimed to have got down from the train. The Tribunal also relied upon the fact that no ticket was recovered from the body, no person had witnessed the deceased falling from the train, no alarm chain was pulled and neither the Loco Pilot nor the Guard received any information regarding such an occurrence.
The deceased’s mother challenged the dismissal before the Delhi High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Genuine Ticket Established Bona Fide Passenger Status
The High Court first considered whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The record showed that the ticket was issued at Jatusana Railway Station for two adult passengers travelling to Kund via Rewari. The ticket was subsequently verified from the issuing station and its genuineness was never disputed by the Railways.
The Court held that the mere fact that the ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased could not dislodge his status as a bona fide passenger. The ticket was produced by Babulal, who had accompanied the deceased during the journey. Once the genuine ticket covering two passengers and the accompanying passenger’s evidence were placed on record, the claimant had discharged the initial burden.
The Court also disapproved the Tribunal’s decision to discard Babulal’s testimony merely because he was related to the deceased. Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a witness unreliable. His testimony was supported by the verified journey ticket and the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the finding that Babulal had been introduced as a false witness could not be sustained.
An Accidental Fall May Naturally Remain Unseen
The High Court observed that the Tribunal had attached undue importance to the absence of a direct eyewitness and the lack of contemporaneous information to railway personnel. An accidental fall from a moving train is, by its very nature, an incident that may not necessarily be witnessed by fellow passengers or noticed by railway employees.
The absence of direct evidence regarding the precise moment of the fall cannot, therefore, be treated as evidence that no fall had occurred. Similarly, failure to pull the alarm chain or immediately report the occurrence may explain why no contemporaneous railway record was available, but it does not establish that the accident never happened.
The Court found that the Railways had not placed any convincing material suggesting an alternative manner of death. In the absence of such evidence, the claimant’s version could not be rejected merely because nobody had witnessed the fall.
Section 124-A Creates Strict and No-Fault Liability
The Court emphasised that Section 124-A embodies a scheme of strict or no-fault liability. Once the case falls within an “untoward incident,” it is unnecessary for the claimant to prove negligence or fault on the part of the Railway Administration.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, the Court reiterated that an accidental fall while boarding, travelling in or attempting to board a passenger train falls within the statutory expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.” Being a beneficial provision intended for railway passengers and their dependants, the section must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation, rather than a narrow or technical one.
The Court also referred to Union of India v. Rina Devi, under which the claimant’s initial burden is not onerous and the case must be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not the stringent standard applicable to criminal trials. Reference was further made to Union of India v. Amit Parashar, where it was held that absence of direct evidence regarding how the deceased fell cannot itself be treated as proof that he did not fall from the train.
High Court’s Decision
Considering the verified journey ticket, Babulal’s testimony, the place where the body was found and the absence of any cogent evidence suggesting an alternative cause or manner of death, the High Court held that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly restrictive approach.
The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal was accordingly set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to determine the compensation payable to the claimant in accordance with law. The Tribunal was directed to ensure disbursement of the compensation within two months from receipt of the High Court’s order.
Author’s Comments
The judgment reiterates that railway compensation proceedings are governed by a beneficial and no-fault statutory scheme. Families of deceased passengers cannot ordinarily produce eyewitnesses to an accidental fall from a moving train. Insisting upon such evidence would defeat the very object of Section 124-A.
At the same time, the claimant must place sufficient foundational material to establish the journey and the probable occurrence of an untoward incident. In the present case, the verified ticket covering two passengers, the testimony of the accompanying passenger and the location of the body collectively discharged that burden. Once these facts were established, it was for the Railways to produce cogent evidence indicating an alternative manner of death or bringing the case within one of the statutory exceptions.
The important principle is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. No eyewitness, no alarm-chain pulling and no immediate railway report may create a gap in the evidence, but those circumstances cannot automatically erase an otherwise probable accidental fall.
Cases Discussed
- Union of India v. Rina Devi — (2019) 3 SCC 572.
- Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar — (2008) 9 SCC 527.
- Union of India v. Amit Parashar — 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10004.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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”1 to 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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”2, 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:
“10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”. Hence, it is an “untoward incident” as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred………
xxx xxxxxx
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.
xxx xxxxxx
17. 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.
9. Similarly, in “Union of India v. Amit Parashar”3, this 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
Notes:
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572
2 (2008) 9 SCC 527
3 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10004
