FAO-8131-2016 [278] Nem Chand Union of In Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] Railway Cl of ₹10,00,0 dismissed. [2] along with Delhi and travelling to ticket beari platform N heavy rush towards the sudden thr moving tra leading to h 2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-8131 Date of De Chand and others versus n of India HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate f Advocate for the appellants. Mr. H.S. Oberoi, Advocate for **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The appellants are in appeal ay Claims Tribunal whereby the clai 0,00,000 on account of death of Gaya issed. The case of the claimants was with other persons had visited Radh i and thereafter reached New Town lling to Palwal. It was stated that the t bearing No. 048220071 for travel t orm No. 3 to board local train/EMU N y rush of passengers on the platform. rds the ladies compartment of the train en thrust of the crowd, as a result ng train, fell on the platform and sust ng to her death at the spot. T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 8131-2016 (O&M) of Decision : 05.03.2026 …Appellants ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN ocate for Mr. Surinder Sharma, for the respondent-UOI. ppeal against the award passed by th he claim petition seeking compensatio Gayatri Devi in a railway accident wa was that on 19.02.2012, the decease d Radha Soami Satsang at Chhatarpu Town Faridabad railway station fo at the deceased had purchased a railwa ravel to Palwal and was going toward MU No. 64080. At that time, there wa tform. While the deceased was movin e train, she was allegedly pushed due result of which she struck against th d sustained severe injuries on her hea 1 by the ensation was eceased atarpur, tion for railway towards ere was moving d due to inst the er head, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:26 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-8131-2016 [3] that the de therefore the occurre under Secti against the [4] Tribunal er The deceas boarding th The Tribun the evidenc was procee she was pus [5] hand while deceased h she cannot that the inc does not fal [6] records of t [7] before this 2016 (O&M) The Tribunal dismissed the cla the deceased had not boarded the trai fore cannot be said to be a bona fide ccurrence was not covered within the d r Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. st the claimants and consequently, the The counsel appearing for nal erred in holding that the decease deceased had purchased a valid ticket ding the train, thus she had attained th Tribunal held that the deceased was cr vidence on record indicates that she proceeding towards the ladies compart as pushed by the crowd and she fell. The counsel appearing for the while upholding the findings recorde ased had not boarded the train at the annot not be treated as a bona fide pa he incident had taken place prior to he not fall within the definition of an unto I have heard counsel for the ds of the case. The first and foremost quest re this court is:- “whether the deceased cou passenger at the time of the inc the claim petition mainly on the groun he train at the time of the incident an fide passenger. The Tribunal held th in the definition of an untoward incide s Act. Issues No.1 and 2 were decide ly, the claim petition was dismissed. for the appellants submits that th eceased was not a bona fide passenge ticket and had reached the platform fo ned the status of a bona fide passenge was crossing the railway lines, wherea t she was present on the platform an ompartment for boarding the train whe fell. or the respondent-Railway on the oth ecorded by the Tribunal submits that th at the time of the alleged incident thu fide passenger. It was further contende her boarding the train and therefo an untoward incident. or the parties and have gone throug question that arises for consideratio could be treated as a bona fid e incident?” 2 ground ent and that incident decided that the ssenger. form for ssenger. whereas orm and in when he other that the thus ntended herefore through deration a fide RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:26 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-8131-2016 [8] No.048220 deceased onto show with her in platform af process of upon actua when the p Tribunal ap deceased h because she [9] Supreme C 572, where under the R and purpos Tribunal ca [10] [11] rush on the was procee 2016 (O&M) From the record, it is evide 48220071 for travel to Palwal was r which establishes that she had pu show that the deceased was present at her intended journey. The movem orm after purchasing a ticket is a n ess of boarding a train. A passenger d actually boarding the train. The pr the passenger reaches the platform nal appears to have taken quite a n ased had not assumed the status of use she had not boarded the train. Reliance can be placed on eme Court in the case of ‘Union of In wherein it has been held that the pro r the Railways Act are beneficial in purposive interpretation. Thus the cannot be sustained. The next question that arises f “whether the occurrence resu falls within the ambit of an under Section 123(c) of the Ra The version put forth by the a on the platform at the time of arrival o proceeding towards the ladies comp evident that a railway ticket bearin was recovered from the person of th had purchased a ticket. The same goe sent at the railway station in connectio ovement of a passenger towards th is a normal and necessary step in th nger does not acquire such status on process commences from the stag tform with a valid ticket. The learne a narrow approach holding that th tus of a bona fide passenger mere d on the ratio of law laid down b of India vs. Rina Devi’, (2019) 3 SC the provisions relating to compensatio ial in nature and must receive a liber the finding recorded by the learne rises for consideration is:- resulting in the death of the decease an “untoward incident” as define e Railways Act?” y the appellants is that there was heav rival of the train and while the decease compartment, she was pushed due 3 bearing n of the goes nection ards the in the tus only he stage learned that the merely own by ) 3 SCC ensation a liberal learned ceased efined s heavy eceased due to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:26 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-8131-2016 sudden thru and sustain [12] over while There is no railway tra the decease support to expression includes in sustained b pressure is an indepen that the dea inflicted inj [13] Tribunal e allowed. [14] claimants a Devi in an occurred on ₹4,00,000/ the claim p The aforesa date of rec 2016 (O&M) en thrust of the crowd. On being struc ustained fatal injuries. The finding recorded by the while crossing the railway lines is not e is no material on record to establish ay tracks at the time of the incident. eceased on the platform along with re ort to the version that she was pre ession “untoward incident” under Sec des incidents that occur in the cours ined by a passenger while attemptin ure is connected to rail journey. It ca dependent occurrence. Further, there he death of the deceased occurred was ted injury. In view of the above discussio nal erred in dismissing the claim In view of the findings reco ants are held entitled to compensatio in an untoward incident relating rred on 19.02.2012, the claimants sha ,000/- along with interest @ 6% per laim petition till actual realization or aforesaid amount shall be paid within of receipt of a certified copy of this o struck by a moving train she fell dow the Tribunal that the deceased was is not supported by evidence on recor blish that the deceased was crossing th ident. On the contrary, the presence o ith recovery of the journey ticket lend as preparing to board the train. Th er Section 123(c) of the Railways A course of boarding a train. An inju mpting to board a train due to crow cannot be severed and perceived a r, there is nothing on record to sugge was result of any intent to suffer sel scussion, this Court is satisfied that th claim petition. The present appeal s recorded hereinabove, the appellan nsation on account of death of Gayat ating to railways. Since the accide ts shall be entitled to compensation o % per annum from the date of filing o or ₹8,00,000/-, whichever is highe within a period of 12 weeks from th f this order, failing which it shall car 4 down was run record. sing the sence of et lends The ays Act n injury o crowd d as suggest self- that the ppeal is pellant- Gayatri accident ation of filing of higher. rom the all carry RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:26 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-8131-2016 interest @ [15] disposed of 05.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2016 (O&M) est @ 7% per annum thereafter till real All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable ill realization. neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:26 I agree to specified portions of this document