FAO-417-2018 [326] Mandeep K Union of In Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] passed by t which claim Act, 1987 r on account 26.04.2013 [2] who is a h from New running in accidentally [3] filing writt averred tha 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-417 Date of De deep Kaur and others versus n of India HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocat Mr. Somesh Gupta, Senior Pan for the respondent-UOI. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Claimants are in appeal aggrie d by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ch h claim application under Section 16 1987 read with Section 124A of the Ra count of death of one Jaspal Singh in .2013 was dismissed. Pleaded facts of the case are is a handicapped person boarded Go New Delhi Railway Station for Am ing in between Railway Stations Ta entally fell down from the running trai The respondent-Railways con written statement wherein by way ed that no incident causing the de T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 417-2018 (O&M) of Decision : 05.03.2026 …Appellants ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN dvocate for the appellants. ior Panel Counsel aggrieved of an order dated: 26.10.201 al, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh vid ion 16 of the Railway Claims Tribun the Railways amounting to ₹ 4,00,000 gh in an untoward incident occurred o e are that on 25.04.2013, the decease ed Golden Temple Mail Express Tra or Amritsar. When the said Train wa ns Tangra and Jandiala, the decease ing train and died on the spot. ys contested the claim application b way of preliminary objections it wa the death of the deceased within th 1 10.2017 arh vide ribunal 00,000/- urred on eceased ss Train ain was eceased tion by s it was thin the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 13:17 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-417-2018 meaning of deceased his jamatal to the gua deceased ar [4] following i [5] and dismis from the found on th train. The c passenger incident. [6] erred in di Jaspal Sing Mail on th favour sin 2018 (O&M) ing of Section 123(c)(2) read with Sec ased was not a bona fide passenger of atalashi. There was no eye-witness e guard or driver of any train. Las ased are not of such nature that are a re After hearing the rival par wing issues:- “1. Whether the deceased w at the time of incident? 2. Whether the alleged inc of Section 123(c)(2) r Railways Act? 3. Whether the applicant deceased? 4. Relief.” Tribunal answered Issue no.1 missed the claim application holdi the jamatalashi of the deceased an d on the railway track, does not prove t . The claimants have failed to prove t nger of the alleged train or that he Counsel appearing for the App in dismissing the claim petition. I l Singh was travelling from New Del on the strength of a valid concessio ur since he was a handicapped p ith Section 124A had occurred. That th ger of the train as no ticket was found itness nor any information was supplie n. Lastly the injuries suffered by th e a result of fall from the train. al parties, the Tribunal framed th ed was a bona fide passenger of tra ent? d incident is covered within the amb 2) read with Section 124-A of th cant is the sole dependent of th e no.1 and no. 2 against the claiman holding that no ticket was recovere ed and simply because the body wa prove that the person fell down from th rove that the deceased was a bona fid that he was involved in an untowar he Appellants submits that the Tribun on. It is contended that the decease w Delhi to Amritsar by Golden Temp ncessional railway ticket issued in h ped person. It is submitted that h 2 That the found in supplied by the ed the f train ambit of the of the laimants covered dy was from the fide ntoward ribunal eceased Temple in his that he RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 13:17 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-417-2018 accidentally Stations an further sub the ground deceased. T of ticket is decided aga [7] found on th the said tra injuries con show that t present on t [8] appellants deceased w During the As per the ticket was deceased of the injur come under a running tr [9] records of t 2018 (O&M) entally fell from the running rain betw ons and succumbed to the injuries su er submits that the Tribunal dismissed round that no journey ticket was re ased. Tribunal failed to appreciate that ket is a natural consequence and mere ed against the claimants. It was further argued that the d on the railway track between the two aid train in question. The post morte ies consistent with a railway accident. that the deceased was a trespasser o nt on track other than being a passeng Counsel appearing for the resp llants have failed to discharge the in ased was a bona fide passenger at t ng the personal search of the deceased er the DRM report and the testimony t was recovered and there was no had fallen from the Train. It was e injuries as per the post-mortem repo underneath a train and the injuries ar ning train. I have heard counsel for th ds of the case. n between Tangra and Jandiala Railwa ries sustained in the said incident. H missed the claim application merely o was recovered from the person of th te that in the case of accidental fall, lo d mere non recovery of ticket cannot b at the dead body of the deceased wa he two Railway Stations on the route o mortem report also indicates multip ident. There is no material on record asser or he had any other reason to b ssenger. e respondent-Railways submits that th the initial burden of proving that th er at the time of the alleged inciden ceased, no journey ticket was recovere timony of railway officials, no journe s no eyewitness to establish that th It was further contended that the natu m report suggests that the deceased ha ries are not typical of a simple fall fro for the parties and gone through th 3 ailway ent. He erely on of the fall, loss nnot be sed was route of multiple ecord to n to be that the that the ncident. covered. journey that the e nature sed had all from ugh the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 13:17 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-417-2018 [10] deceased w incident or bona fide appellants the deceas conducted a railway tick reason that ipso facto proved by passenger a appellants independen boarded or [11] appellant– bona fide untoward in placed on r from the el was separat abrasions a and extent resulted fro 2018 (O&M) The question which arises f ased was proved to be a bona fide pas ent or not. The burden to establish tha fide passenger lies upon the claim llants have failed to produce any relia eceased had purchased a valid tick cted after the incident by the GRP, ay ticket was recovered from the perso n that a dead body was found on or cto prove that the person fell down f ed by some cogent evident that he nger and in the present case such onu llants by any convincing evidence. T endent witness or documentary eviden ded or was intending to board a train. Therefore, this Court is of –claimants have failed to establis fide passenger of the alleged train ward incident. This conclusion also fi d on record, which records that the lef the elbow, the left leg was amputated separated from the knee. The report fu ions and presence of grease over the xtent of these injuries make it highly ted from a simple fall from a moving ises for consideration is whether th passenger at the time of the allege ish that the deceased was travelling as e claimants. In the present case, th y reliable evidence to demonstrate th id ticket. As per the personal searc the fard jamatalashi shows that n e person of the deceased. Merely for th on or near the railway track, does n own from the train until and unless it at he was travelling as a bona fid ch onus has not been discharged by th nce. They have also not produced an evidence to show that the deceased ha train. is of the considered view that th stablish that the deceased was either train or that he was a victim of a also finds support from the death repo the left arm of the deceased was broke putated from the thigh and the right le port further notes multiple scrub mark er the body of the deceased. The natu ighly unlikely that the same could hav oving train as alleged by the claimant 4 ther the alleged ling as a ase, the rate that l search that no y for the oes not less it is a fide d by the ced any sed had that the either a of an h report broken ight leg marks, e nature ld have aimants. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 13:17 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-417-2018 The medica forth by the personal se evidence or train, the be 2019 (3) S [12] is made ou Claims Trib dismissed [13] disposed of 05.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2018 (O&M) medical and surrounding circumstance by the claimants. In the present cas nal search of the deceased and in nce or independent witness to show t , the benefit of ratio of law laid down i SCC 572, cannot be extended to th Accordingly this Court is of th ade out for interference with the awar s Tribunal. Finding no merit in the p issed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable stances do not support the version p nt case, no recovery of ticket from th d in the absence of any documentar show that the deceased had boarded th down in ‘Union of India vs. Rina Dev d to the claimants. is of the considered view that no groun e award passed by the learned Railwa the present appeal, the same is hereb neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 sion put om the mentary rded the Devi, ground Railway hereby stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 13:17 I agree to specified portions of this document