Ghanshyam & Ors. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Can Railway Compensation Be Denied Merely Because the Ticket Was Found Later and the Body Lay on the Track?
The Controversy
The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of a railway accident compensation claim, holding that non-recovery of a journey ticket during the initial search of the deceased’s belongings was not conclusive against the claimants. The ticket’s subsequent recovery and verification had to be considered alongside the oral evidence and surrounding circumstances.
The Court also rejected the assumption that a body found on the railway track with extensive crush injuries necessarily established track-crossing rather than an accidental fall from a train. Such an inference required cogent supporting evidence. The matter was remanded to determine compensation and arrange its disbursement.
The Accident and the Compensation Claim
The claim concerned the death of Rohit Kumar on 18 November 2025. According to the claimants, he was travelling from Babrala to Aligarh by Train No. 54354, along with Rakesh, Bhola Singh and Brijesh Kumar, on a common second-class journey ticket.
He allegedly fell accidentally from the train. His body was found near kilometre 112/15 between Babrala and Rajghat.
The family maintained that the journey ticket was subsequently found in the back pocket of his trousers during the post-mortem proceedings and handed over to them.
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 12 June 2026, holding that the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger had not been established. It disbelieved the ticket because it was not recovered during the initial jamatalashi, or search of his belongings, and was produced with the claim application.
The Tribunal further inferred from the location of the body and the injuries that the deceased had been crossing the track. It therefore rejected the claim that the death resulted from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.
A Ticket Found Later Cannot Simply Be Ignored
The High Court identified two questions: whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and whether his death resulted from an untoward incident under section 123(c).
On the first issue, it relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, and the principle reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350.
The evidence had to be evaluated as a whole. The mere absence of a ticket from the initial recovery proceedings could not, by itself, defeat the claim.
The deceased’s father, examined as AW-1, specifically explained that the ticket had been recovered during the post-mortem and handed over to him. Its omission from the initial search record warranted examination, but did not automatically discredit that explanation.
Significantly, the Railways’ own stand acknowledged that the ticket appeared to have been subsequently verified. Its later production therefore required assessment alongside the father’s testimony and the remaining evidence.
Association With the Deceased Does Not Disqualify a Witness
The testimony of Rakesh, AW-2, was challenged because his name did not appear in the initial record and he was associated with the deceased.
The Court held that these circumstances could affect the assessment of his testimony, but did not automatically render the entire claim unreliable.
Even if his account of the precise manner of the fall was not accepted, the father’s evidence and the other circumstances were sufficient to establish the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.
Thus, rejection of one part of a witness’s account could not substitute for an evaluation of the remaining evidence.
Body on the Track: Evidence, Not a Complete Explanation
Section 123(c) includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a passenger train within an untoward incident.
The Court explained that the claimants’ case had to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. Direct evidence of precisely how a fatal accident occurred might not always be available.
Relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, it emphasised the beneficial object of the statutory scheme.
The location of the body and extensive crush injuries were relevant circumstances. However, without further cogent material—such as a loco-pilot’s statement or eyewitness evidence—they did not establish that the deceased was crossing the track.
The Court referred to Anita Devi v. Union of India, FAO 15/2016, and Vidhya Ram v. Union of India, FAO 11/2024, supporting the need to assess the entire evidence rather than assume a sequence of events from the body’s location alone.
The Ruling
The High Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence unduly restrictive and set aside its judgment.
The matter was remanded for assessment of compensation payable in accordance with law, with directions for its disbursement within two months of receipt of the High Court’s order. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal initially on 12 January 2027. The appeal was allowed.
Author’s Comments
An omission in the first recovery record is a circumstance to examine, not an automatic verdict against the family. The later ticket, its verification and the explanation for its recovery all required meaningful consideration.
Equally, the place where a body is found does not necessarily reveal how the accident began. The Court recognised that the injuries and location could fit more than one sequence of events.
The judgment does not dispense with proof. It requires proof to be assessed through probabilities, the complete evidence and the beneficial statutory purpose, rather than through assumptions.
A compensation claim cannot be rejected merely by turning a missing initial entry into missing passenger status, or a body on the track into proof of track-crossing.
Cases Discussed
1. Lata v. Union of India — Supreme Court, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350. Followed for reaffirming that non-recovery of a journey ticket, without considering the remaining evidence, does not by itself defeat a railway compensation claim.
2. Vidhya Ram v. Union of India — Delhi High Court, FAO 11/2024. Referred to for the requirement to evaluate the probabilities arising from the evidence rather than presume track-crossing solely from the location of the body.
3. Anita Devi v. Union of India — Delhi High Court, FAO 15/2016. Relied upon for the principle that the location of the body and nature of injuries do not conclusively establish track-crossing and exclude accidental falling from a train.
4. Union of India v. Rina Devi — Supreme Court, (2019) 3 SCC 572. Relied upon for determining bona fide passenger status by considering the entire evidence, including the principle that mere non-recovery of the ticket is not conclusive against the claimant.
5. Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar — Supreme Court, (2008) 9 SCC 527. Relied upon for the beneficial interpretation of the statutory railway compensation scheme concerning accidental falls from passenger trains.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants seek to assail the judgment dated 12.06.2026 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/635/2026, whereby their claim for compensation arising out of the death of one Rohit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) came to be dismissed.
2. The claim application came to be filed in respect of an incident dated 18.11.2025, in which the deceased, who was travelling from Babrala to Aligarh by Train No. 54354 along with three other persons, namely, Rakesh, Bhola Singh and Brijesh Kumar, on a common second-class journey ticket bearing No. AAC-92096816, accidentally fell from the train and lost his life. His body was found near kilometre 112/15 between Babrala and Rajghat. The appellants maintained that the ticket was subsequently found in the back pocket of the deceased’s trousers during the post-mortem proceedings and was handed over to the family.
3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The journey ticket was disbelieved on the ground that it had not been recovered during the jamatalashi but had been produced with the claim application. Further, relying upon the location of the body and the nature of the injuries, the Tribunal inferred that the deceased had been crossing the railway track and that his death did not result from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the father of the deceased, categorically deposed that the journey ticket was recovered from the deceased’s clothing during the post-mortem proceedings and was handed over to him. It is further submitted that the testimony of Rakesh/AW-2, who was travelling with the deceased, could not have been discarded merely on account of his association with the deceased or the absence of his name in the initial record. Learned counsel submits that the inference of track-crossing drawn by the Tribunal is not based on any cogent evidence, as neither the location of the body nor the injuries recorded in the post-mortem report establish that the deceased was crossing the track.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, defends the impugned order. It is contended that the journey ticket was not recovered during the jamatalashi and was produced only along with the claim application. Although the ticket appears to have been subsequently verified, the respondent disputes its genuineness and evidentiary value on the ground that it was not recovered at the relevant time or disclosed to the RPF or railway officials contemporaneously, and its belated production casts doubt on the appellants’ case. Learned counsel further submits that the testimony of AW-2 was rightly rejected and that the location of the body and the extensive injuries were sufficientto support the findings returned by the Tribunal.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record, the questions which arise for consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether his death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act.
7. As regards the first issue, the principles governing the burden of proof in claims of this nature stand settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in “Union of India v. Rina Devi”1 and the same principle has recently been reiterated in “Lata v. Union of India”2. The evidence led by the appellants has to be considered as a whole as the mere absence of a ticket from the initial recovery proceedings cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive against them. The approach must also be informed by the beneficial nature of the statutory remedy.
In the present case, the father of the deceased, who was examined as AW-1, specifically deposed that the deceased was travelling after purchasing a valid journey ticket and the said ticket was found in the back pocket of the deceased’s trousers during the post-mortem proceedings and was thereafter handed over to him. The fact that the ticket was not mentioned in the jamatalashi is a circumstance which calls for consideration, but it does not, without more, discredit the explanation furnished by AW-1. Significantly, the respondent’s own stand is that the ticket appears to have been subsequently verified, though its genuineness and evidentiary value are disputed on account of the circumstances in which it was produced. The subsequent production of the ticket, therefore, had to be assessed alongside the testimony of AW-1 and the remaining evidence.
8. The testimony of AW-2/Rakesh has been assailed on the ground that his name did not figure in the initial record and that he was associated with the deceased. These circumstances may be considered while assessing his testimony, but they do not, by themselves, render the entire claim unreliable. Even if his statement regarding the precise manner in which the deceased fell is not accepted, the evidence of AW-1 and the other circumstances on record are sufficient to accord the status of a bona fide passenger to the deceased.
9. The next issue concerns the nature of the incident. Section 123(c) of the Act includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within the expression “untoward incident”. The appellants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. At the same time, the precise manner in which an accident occurred may not always be capable of being established by direct evidence. In “Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar”3, the Supreme Court emphasised the beneficial object of the statutory scheme and the need to approach such claims accordingly.
10. In the present case, the Tribunal drew an inference of track-crossing primarily from the fact that the body was found in the middle of the railway track and the deceased had suffered extensive crush injuries. These circumstances form part of the evidence, but they do not, on their own, “establish” that the deceased was crossing the track. In the absence of other cogent material, such as any statement of the loco-pilot or any other eye witness showing that the deceased was trespassing upon or crossing the track, the inference drawn by the learned Tribunal remains speculative.
11. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in “Anita Devi v. Union of India”4, wherein this Court held that the location of a body and the nature of the injuries cannot, in themselves, conclusively establish that the deceased had been crossing the railway track. The circumstances have to be considered as a whole, and the possibility of an accidental fall cannot be ruled out merely on the basis of an assumption as to how the body came to be found at that location.The same approach was adopted by this Court in “Vidhya Ram v. Union of India”5. The absence of direct evidence regarding the precise manner of the incident does not, by itself, justify drawing an adverse inference against the claimants. Where the material on record does not establish track-crossing or any other circumstance excluding an accidental fall, the claim has to be examined on the basis of the probabilities arising from the evidence, rather than an assumed sequence of events.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the finding that the deceased was crossing the railway track is not supported by any independent evidence establishing such conduct. The location of the body and the injuries sustained by the deceased may be consistent with more than one possible sequence of events. They do not, without further evidence, establish that the deceased was crossing the track or that his death occurred in circumstances excluding an accidental fall from the train.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order proceeds on arestrictive appreciation of the evidence. The absence of the ticket from the jamatalashi, particularly when the ticket was subsequently verified, required consideration alongside the explanation furnished by AW-1. Likewise, the rejection of AW-2’s testimony did not, by itself, establish that the deceased was crossing the track.
14. 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 12.01.2027.
15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
16. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
Notes
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
3 (2008) 9 SCC 527
4 FAO 15/2016
5 FAO 11/2024
