Budhu Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in Budhu Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India, set aside an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal rejecting compensation for the death of a 21-year-old railway passenger on the ground that the journey ticket recovered from his body appeared unusually clean and did not contain bloodstains. Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that the Tribunal’s findings were perverse and unconscionable because there was no legal or factual basis for assuming that a railway ticket recovered from the belongings of an injured or deceased passenger must necessarily be bloodstained or mutilated. The Court observed that the railway ticket had been recovered during the initial search of the deceased’s belongings and its issuance had been independently verified by the Railway Protection Force. The Court consequently held that the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger whose death resulted from a railway accident. It awarded statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000 together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of accident until realisation.
The case concerned the death of Deepak, aged 21 years, on 13 January 2017 while allegedly travelling by Mail Express Train from Chandigarh to Nagina. According to the claimants, the train was overcrowded and a sudden jerk caused Deepak to fall accidentally from the moving train near kilometre 1529/32-30 between Raysi and Balawali. He sustained fatal injuries to vital parts of his body, and his body was subsequently found in bushes near the railway track. His legal heirs, including his father Budhu Singh, widow and minor daughter, filed a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, dismissed the claim through its judgment dated 20 December 2019 in OA(IIU) No. GZB/63/2017.
The Tribunal rejected the claim primarily because it considered the recovered ticket suspicious. It observed that the ticket appeared new, whereas the deceased had suffered extensive wounds, abrasions and crush injuries and had been found with bloodstained clothing. According to the Tribunal, the ticket should therefore have been mutilated or stained with blood. The Tribunal also expressed suspicion that a general railway ticket, which did not record the passenger’s name, age or train number, could easily be procured after an incident. It speculated that the claimants might have obtained and planted the ticket with the assistance of a middleman interested in sharing the compensation amount. On that basis, it concluded that the deceased had not been proved to be a bona fide passenger.
The Tribunal further held that no witness had personally observed Deepak purchasing the ticket, boarding the train or falling from it. It also relied on the fact that the body had been found in bushes a few feet from the railway track rather than on the track itself. It suggested that the deceased might have been walking beside the railway line or standing near the track and could have become entangled with a moving train. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the occurrence had not been established as an untoward incident under the Railways Act and rejected the claimants’ entitlement to compensation.
Before the Delhi High Court, the appellants challenged these conclusions by referring to contemporaneous official records. Their counsel submitted that the deceased’s body had been discovered at approximately 10:25 a.m. and that a Panchnama prepared at about 11:15 a.m. specifically recorded recovery of a railway ticket during the Jamatalashi, or search of the deceased’s belongings. A Railway Protection Force roznamcha entry dated 13 January 2017 at 12:30 p.m. also recorded that a journey ticket bearing No. 48504488, issued for travel from Chandigarh to Nagina, had been recovered along with ₹2,500 in cash and a black Lava mobile phone. The ticket was verified at the instance of the RPF Inspector, and its issuance from Chandigarh on 12 January 2017 was confirmed.
The Railway Administration opposed the appeal on the grounds that the recovered ticket did not contain the passenger’s name and that the body had been discovered away from the railway line. The High Court rejected these objections. It held that the contemporaneous recovery and subsequent verification of the ticket substantially contradicted the Tribunal’s speculative suggestion that the document had been planted. The claimants had not known of Deepak’s death when his belongings were first searched, and there was no apparent opportunity for them to place a fabricated ticket among his possessions. The Court also noted that nobody had suggested that the currency notes or mobile phone recovered from the body were stained with blood. Accordingly, there was no rational basis for requiring bloodstains on the journey ticket alone.
The High Court specifically criticised the Tribunal’s assumption concerning the condition of the ticket, observing that no universal rule requires every personal belonging of a person sustaining fatal injuries to bear bloodstains. The absence of blood on one article could not establish fabrication, particularly when the article’s recovery had been contemporaneously recorded and its issuance independently verified. This finding reinforces the importance of evaluating railway accident compensation claims on actual evidence rather than conjecture.
Regarding the location of the deceased’s body, the High Court relied on Maya Devi Vs Union of India, FAO 221/2013, in which the Delhi High Court had rejected the proposition that discovery of a body several metres away from a railway track necessarily excluded a fatal fall from a train. In that decision, the Court recognised the possibility that an injured passenger might move some distance after falling before collapsing. Applying the same reasoning, Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that Deepak had been working in Chandigarh and was a native of Nagina, and that the recovery of his body between Raysi and Balawali was consistent with the claimed journey. The Court further considered it reasonably possible that the speed of the train had caused his body to be thrown away from the track after the fall.
The medical evidence also supported the occurrence of a fatal railway accident. The post-mortem report recorded a lacerated wound measuring 7 cm by 6 cm on the left frontal region of the head, an abrasion measuring 10 cm by 3 cm on the left thigh, and a contusion measuring 12 cm by 9 cm on the left buttock. The stated cause of death was haemorrhagic shock arising from antemortem head injuries. The Court held that the nature of these injuries was consistent with the possibility of a fall from a moving train. Reading the ticket recovery record, verification evidence, journey circumstances, location of the body and medical findings together, the High Court concluded that Deepak was a bona fide passenger and had died in a railway accident.
The High Court also condoned the delay of 245 days in filing the appeal. The respondent had not filed any reply opposing the delay-condonation application, and its counsel expressly stated that there was no objection to the application being allowed. In the interest of justice, the Court condoned the delay and proceeded to determine the substantive appeal. Having rejected the Tribunal’s reasoning, the Court allowed FAO 104/2021 and set aside the judgment dated 20 December 2019.
On compensation, the Court directed the Railway Administration to pay ₹8,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the accident date, 13 January 2017, until realisation. It specifically apportioned the principal compensation among the deceased’s legal heirs. Budhu Singh, the father, was awarded ₹80,000 with accrued interest. The remaining ₹7,20,000 was directed to be distributed between the widow and minor daughter in the ratio of 3:1, with the mother acting as legal guardian of the minor daughter. This produces a principal allocation of ₹5,40,000 to the widow and ₹1,80,000 to the minor daughter, in addition to the father’s ₹80,000, with accrued interest allocated as directed by the Court.
The ruling demonstrates that a Railway Claims Tribunal cannot reject an otherwise supported accident claim merely because a genuine and independently verified ticket is unstained or because the deceased’s body was recovered some distance from the railway track. Speculative possibilities concerning ticket fabrication or alternative causes of death must not displace contemporaneous recovery records, official verification and medical evidence without adequate factual support. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary protection available to genuine claimants under the railway compensation framework while granting substantive compensation and interest to the deceased passenger’s legal heirs.
Cases Discussed
1. Maya Devi Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court); FAO No. 221 of 2013; 22/05/2014 — Expressly relied upon by the High Court. The decision held that recovery of a deceased passenger’s body several metres from the railway track did not, by itself, establish that the person had not fallen from a moving train. The Court recognised that an injured passenger could move away from the track before collapsing. The same reasoning was applied in determining Deepak’s status as a bona fide passenger and the nature of the accident.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT
CM APPL. 9435/2021 – DELAY OF 245 DAYS IN FILING
1. There is a delay of 245 days in filing the present appeal on behalf of the appellants. No reply to the said application has been preferred on behalf of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the said application is allowed.
3. For the reasons stated in the application and in interest of justice, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
4. The application is disposed of.
FAO 104/2021
5. This appeal is being preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased/Deepak under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [for short referred as the “RCT”], for setting aside/quashing of the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2019, passed by the learned presiding officer/RCT, Principal Bench, Delhi in case No. OA(IIU) No. GZB/63/2017.
6. In short, the claimants preferred an application under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation on account of death of Deepak, aged 21 years, on 13.01.2017, while travelling by Mail Express Train from Chandigarh to Nagina and allegedly accidently falling down at KM No. 1529/32-30 between Raysi and Balawali due to overcrowding and jerk in the train, resultantly sustaining fatal injuries on the vital parts of his body.
7. The principal grounds on which the learned presiding officer/RCT has dismissed the claim petition, are as follows:
“6.4) The most glaring fact which is noticeable here is that from the bare reading of the alleged railway journey ticket annexed with the claim application, it can be easily transpired that it seems to be a new one as if it were issued today, whereas according to the condition of the dead body, this ticket should have been in a mutilated condition containing stains of blood on it, because as per the Inquest Report, the deceased sustained multiple lacerated wounds, abrasions and crush injuries and his body, with blood stained clothes, was found lying the bushes near to the track.
6.5) It is relevant to highlight here that I have seen in a number of cases that it is very easy to procure travelling tickets from any railway station. There is no method of keeping the records of these used tickets/collected tickets at the railway stations. Moreso, there is no proper system of disposal of these used tickets/collected tickets. Since this was a general ticket, which was not containing the details of the passengers viz. name of the passenger, age or train number. Thus, from the perusal of these documents, it appears that the ticket, which was annexed with the claim application, seems to be procured and planted by the applicant, in connivance with the middleman, who may be interested in sharing the claim amount.
Thus, in these circumstances, the deceased cannot be termed to be a bonafide passenger.
Secondly, as far as the issued of “Untoward Incident” is concerned, the applicant has pleaded that the deceased die due to accidental fall from the running train because of jerk, but none of the witnesses have either seen the deceased while purchasing, boarding or falling down from the train. It is pertinent to mention here that the dead body of the deceased was found in the nearby bushes, which were few feet away from the railway track. Thus, finding the dead body in such a condition, that too a few feet away from the track, insofacto, does not prove that the demise of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the train.
On the other side, from the nature of injuries sustained on the person of the deceased, and the fact that the dead body of deceased was lying in the bushes, a few feet away from the railway track, with multiple abrasions, lacerated wounds and crush injuries on his person, which indicate that it is possible that the deceased might have entangled with the moving train while standing near the track or walking along the track, which resulted into his death. More importantly, it is noted that the family of the deceased came to police station after receipt of information. Thus mere alleging of happening of untoward incident on the part of the applicants, does not ipso facto, proves that the deceased accidently fell down from the train until and unless proved by some cogent and convincing evidence that he was travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger. Such onus has not been discharged by the applicants by adducing any plausible evidence.
From the facts of the case as well as surrounding circumstances, it is writ large on the file that it is not a case of death of the deceased coming within the purview of an untoward incident within the meaning of section 124-A of the Railways Act. Moreso, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of any train at the relevant time, hence, both these issues are anwered against the applicants.
Issue No. 3
In view of my findings on the aforesaid main issue, this issue has become redundant, hence, needs no finding.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has pointed out that the dead body of the deceased was discovered at 10:25 am and the Panchnama was prepared on discovery of the dead body at about 11:15 AM, wherein in the Jamatalashi of the deceased, it was inter alia indicated that a railway ticket was found.
9. It is pointed out that in the roznamcha entry made by the Railway Police Force [“RPF”] dated 13.01.2017 at 12:30 PM, it was inter alia, recorded that from the Jamatalashi of the deceased, apart from the recovery of Rs.2,500/- in cash and a black Lava mobile phone, a ticket number No.48504488 issued from Chandigarh to Nagina was also recovered.
10. It is also pointed out that the verification of the ticket was done at the behest of Inspector, RPF, and it was verified that the ticket which was recovered from the Jamatalashi of the deceased was issued from Chandigarh on 12.01.2017.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that there was no mention of the name of the passenger on the ticket and it is also urged that the body of the deceased was found far away from the railway track.
12. Ex facie, the findings recorded by the learned RCT are not only perverse but also unconscionable, and cannot be sustained in law. It is borne out from the record that at the first available opportunity, the railway ticket was found on the Jamatalashi of the deceased. The reasoning accorded by the learned RCT that the railway ticket was not having any blood stains, belies common sense. The claimants or for that matter no one had any knowledge of the death of the deceased and they had no opportunity to plant the railway ticket.
13. Furthermore, as it is not the case that anyone claimed that there were blood stains on the currency notes and/or the mobile phone, which were recovered from the body of the deceased. Newtons third law does not apply in a matter like this so to warrant that the bodily injuries suffered must have left traces of blood on the railway ticket. There is no thumb rule that there should be blood stains on the personal belongings of the deceased passenger in case of injuries which were sustained by the deceased passenger.
14. Unhesitatingly, the deceased was a bona fide passenger and it was a case of a railway accident. The plea by the Learned counsel for the respondent that the body was found little away from the railway tracks cuts no ice. It would be relevant to invite reference to decision in the case of Maya Devi vs. Union of India [FAO 221/2013], wherein the following observations were made:
“6. The other conclusion of the Tribunal that since the body was lying towards the down track and hence there was no train travel is equally fallacious. Firstly, the Tribunal cannot conclude that merely because the dead body was recovered in the field 6-7 meters away from the down track adjacent to the up-track in which the deceased was travelling, this case will not be a case of a fall from the train. It is very much possible that after falling down from the train, the deceased had that much amount of life and strength to move himself for a few meter before completely collapsing. Merely because the body is found 6-7 meters away from the track cannot mean that the deceased was not travelling on the train. This conclusion of the Tribunal is also therefore quite clearly erroneous and is hence set aside.”
15. In the present case, it starkly comes out that the deceased was working at Chandigarh, who was a native of Nagina, and the body of the deceased was found somewhere on the railway track between Raysi and Balawali, and it can be reasonably inferred that due to the shear intensity of the speed of the train, the body was flung away and landed at some distance from the railway tracks. As a matter of fact, the nature of the injuries1 reflected in the post mortem report clearly demonstrates that the said injuries could have been possibly sustained by a fall from a running train.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2019, passed by the learned presiding officer/RCT, Principal Bench, Delhi, is hereby set aside.
17. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are made entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of accident till the realization.
18. As regards apportionment of the amount of compensation, the appellant/claimant no. 1 happens to be the father of the deceased, whereas the appellants no. 2 & 3 are the widow and a minor child respectively.
19. It is directed that the appellant No.1, Mr. Budhu Singh, father of the deceased, shall be entitled to Rs.80,000/- with accrued interest and the remaining amount of Rs.7,20,000/- shall be apportioned between the widow and the minor daughter with her mother as the legal guardian in the ratio of 3:1 with accrued interest.
20. The appeal is hereby disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
1 Injuries suffered by the deceased are (1) L/W 7x6cm on left side of frontal region of head abrasion 10cmx3cm on left thigh (2) Contusion 12cmx9cm on left side buttock and the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem head injuries. ↩
