FAO NO.719 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BABITA KUMARI AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA 1 The date when the 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Central Govt. for the HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 17.10.2017 Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 123(c) and 124 account of death of Ashok Kumar Ram in an untoward railway incident, came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that on 17.07.2015, the deceased Ashok Kumar Ram, along w Ram and cousin, was proceeding to his native village at Supaul, Bihar, after 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.719 BABITA KUMARI AND ORS. UNION OF INDIA The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Ujval Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Central Govt. Counsel for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order 17.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation on account of death of Ashok Kumar Ram in an untoward railway incident, came to Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that on , the deceased Ashok Kumar Ram, along w Ram and cousin, was proceeding to his native village at Supaul, Bihar, after IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 719 of 2018 (O&M) …Appellants …Respondent judgment was reserved 10.07.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.08.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 01.08.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Counsel By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with lways Act, 1989, seeking compensation on account of death of Ashok Kumar Ram in an untoward railway incident, came to Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that on , the deceased Ashok Kumar Ram, along with his brother Sushil Kumar Ram and cousin, was proceeding to his native village at Supaul, Bihar, after 1 By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with lways Act, 1989, seeking compensation on account of death of Ashok Kumar Ram in an untoward railway incident, came to Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that on ith his brother Sushil Kumar Ram and cousin, was proceeding to his native village at Supaul, Bihar, after MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 obtaining leave from his work at Mohali. Since they intended to secure seats in a train bound for Bihar from Jalandhar City, they travelled by bus up Railway Station, where one journey ticket for three passengers from Sirhind to Jalandhar City was purchased. Thereafter, they boarded Jan Sewa Express. It was alleged that after the train crossed Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Station, the deceased went towards the toilet train between Khanna and Chawa Railway Stations at Kilometer No.340/02 sustained grievous injuries. 3. It was further pleaded that as the train did not stop despite alarm raised by the co and immediately informed the Government Railway Police. On inquiry made through the Station Master, Dhandari Kalan, it came to light that an injured person had already been shifted from the said location to Civil Hospital, Khanna. The co passengers reached the hospital, where the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. The brother of the deceased identified the body and handed over the original journey ticket to the Governm Statements of the co 4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the appellants claimed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger died in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, thereby entitling the dependants to statutory compensation under Section 124 A thereof. 5. The respondent statement denying the allegations. It was pleaded that the alleged story of travelling from Sirhind to Jalandhar and accidental fall from Jan Sewa Express was false, 2018 (O&M) obtaining leave from his work at Mohali. Since they intended to secure seats in a train bound for Bihar from Jalandhar City, they travelled by bus up Railway Station, where one journey ticket for three passengers from Sirhind to Jalandhar City was purchased. Thereafter, they boarded Jan Sewa Express. It was alleged that after the train crossed Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Station, the nt towards the toilet and, owing to an accidental fe train between Khanna and Chawa Railway Stations at Kilometer No.340/02 sustained grievous injuries. It was further pleaded that as the train did not stop despite alarm raised by the co-passengers, they deboarded at Dhandari Kalan Railway Station and immediately informed the Government Railway Police. On inquiry made through the Station Master, Dhandari Kalan, it came to light that an injured person n shifted from the said location to Civil Hospital, Khanna. The co passengers reached the hospital, where the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. The brother of the deceased identified the body and handed over the original journey ticket to the Government Railway Police during the inquest proceedings. Statements of the co-passengers were also recorded on the very same day. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the appellants claimed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey ticket and had died in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, thereby entitling the dependants to statutory compensation under Section 124 The respondent-Railways contested the claim by filing a written statement denying the allegations. It was pleaded that the alleged story of travelling from Sirhind to Jalandhar and accidental fall from Jan Sewa Express was false, obtaining leave from his work at Mohali. Since they intended to secure seats in a train bound for Bihar from Jalandhar City, they travelled by bus up to Sirhind Railway Station, where one journey ticket for three passengers from Sirhind to Jalandhar City was purchased. Thereafter, they boarded Jan Sewa Express. It was alleged that after the train crossed Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Station, the and, owing to an accidental fell from the running train between Khanna and Chawa Railway Stations at Kilometer No.340/02- It was further pleaded that as the train did not stop despite alarm being passengers, they deboarded at Dhandari Kalan Railway Station and immediately informed the Government Railway Police. On inquiry made through the Station Master, Dhandari Kalan, it came to light that an injured person n shifted from the said location to Civil Hospital, Khanna. The co passengers reached the hospital, where the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. The brother of the deceased identified the body and handed over the original ent Railway Police during the inquest proceedings. passengers were also recorded on the very same day. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the appellants claimed that travelling on a valid journey ticket and had died in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, thereby entitling the dependants to statutory compensation under Section 124 contested the claim by filing a written statement denying the allegations. It was pleaded that the alleged story of travelling from Sirhind to Jalandhar and accidental fall from Jan Sewa Express was false, 2 obtaining leave from his work at Mohali. Since they intended to secure seats in a to Sirhind Railway Station, where one journey ticket for three passengers from Sirhind to Jalandhar City was purchased. Thereafter, they boarded Jan Sewa Express. It was alleged that after the train crossed Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Station, the ll from the running -04, being passengers, they deboarded at Dhandari Kalan Railway Station and immediately informed the Government Railway Police. On inquiry made through the Station Master, Dhandari Kalan, it came to light that an injured person n shifted from the said location to Civil Hospital, Khanna. The co- passengers reached the hospital, where the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. The brother of the deceased identified the body and handed over the original ent Railway Police during the inquest proceedings. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the appellants claimed that travelling on a valid journey ticket and had died in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, thereby entitling the dependants to statutory compensation under Section 124- contested the claim by filing a written statement denying the allegations. It was pleaded that the alleged story of travelling from Sirhind to Jalandhar and accidental fall from Jan Sewa Express was false, MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 fabricated and unsupported by any reliable eviden the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the alleged journey ticket had not been established in accordance with law. Consequently, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “(i) the alleged incident? (ii) incident" 124 (iii) (iv) 7. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that he accidentally fell from a passenger train. The Tribunal found the observed that the story of travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter proceeding towards Jalandhar to board another train for Bihar was inherently improbable. The Tribunal also noticed employment of the deceased, the family particulars and the conduct of the co passengers after the occurrence. Consequently, it concluded that the alleged untoward incident was not proved and, therefore, the appellants we 2018 (O&M) fabricated and unsupported by any reliable eviden the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the alleged journey ticket had not been established in accordance with law. Consequently, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the alleged incident? (ii) Whether the alleged occurrence constituted an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act? (iii) Whether the applicants were the dependants of the deceased? (iv) Relief.” Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that he accidentally fell from a passenger train. The Tribunal found the version of the alleged co observed that the story of travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter proceeding towards Jalandhar to board another train for Bihar was inherently improbable. The Tribunal also noticed certain discrepancies regarding the employment of the deceased, the family particulars and the conduct of the co passengers after the occurrence. Consequently, it concluded that the alleged untoward incident was not proved and, therefore, the appellants we fabricated and unsupported by any reliable evidence. It was further asserted that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the alleged journey ticket had not been established in accordance with law. Consequently, it On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of Whether the alleged occurrence constituted an "untoward within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section Whether the applicants were the dependants of the deceased? Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that he accidentally fell from a passenger train. The version of the alleged co-passengers to be unreliable and observed that the story of travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter proceeding towards Jalandhar to board another train for Bihar was inherently certain discrepancies regarding the employment of the deceased, the family particulars and the conduct of the co passengers after the occurrence. Consequently, it concluded that the alleged untoward incident was not proved and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled 3 ce. It was further asserted that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the alleged journey ticket had not been established in accordance with law. Consequently, it On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of Whether the alleged occurrence constituted an "untoward within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section Whether the applicants were the dependants of the deceased? Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that he accidentally fell from a passenger train. The passengers to be unreliable and observed that the story of travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter proceeding towards Jalandhar to board another train for Bihar was inherently certain discrepancies regarding the employment of the deceased, the family particulars and the conduct of the co- passengers after the occurrence. Consequently, it concluded that the alleged re not entitled MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 to any compensation. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the Tribunal adopted a wholly hyper evidence and discarded overwhelming documentary material merely on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself acknowledges recovery of the injured from the railway track, shifting of the victim to Civil Hospital, Khanna, the subsequent inquest proceedings and production of the journey ticket by the deceased's brother. He further submitted that the genuineness of the journey ticket was never disputed after verification by the Railway Administra shown to be travelling on a valid ticket and the accidental fall from a passenger train stood probabilised through contemporaneous railway and police records, the statutory presumption under Section and the Tribunal gravely erred in rejecting the claim by drawing speculative inferences regarding the route chosen by the passengers. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased was travelling in the alleged train. It was argued that the evidence of the alleged co contradictions and no independent witness was produced to corroborate the alleged fall. He further submitted that the conduct attributed to the co not pulling the alarm chain or informing the train guard immediately, rendered the 2018 (O&M) to any compensation. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the Tribunal adopted a wholly hyper-technical approach while a evidence and discarded overwhelming documentary material merely on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself acknowledges recovery of the injured from the railway track, shifting im to Civil Hospital, Khanna, the subsequent inquest proceedings and production of the journey ticket by the deceased's brother. He further submitted that the genuineness of the journey ticket was never disputed after verification by the Railway Administration. According to the appellants, once the deceased was shown to be travelling on a valid ticket and the accidental fall from a passenger train stood probabilised through contemporaneous railway and police records, the statutory presumption under Section 124-A of the Railways Act became operative and the Tribunal gravely erred in rejecting the claim by drawing speculative inferences regarding the route chosen by the passengers. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased was travelling in the alleged train. It was argued that the evidence of the alleged co dictions and no independent witness was produced to corroborate the alleged fall. He further submitted that the conduct attributed to the co not pulling the alarm chain or informing the train guard immediately, rendered the to any compensation. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that technical approach while appreciating the evidence and discarded overwhelming documentary material merely on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself acknowledges recovery of the injured from the railway track, shifting im to Civil Hospital, Khanna, the subsequent inquest proceedings and production of the journey ticket by the deceased's brother. He further submitted that the genuineness of the journey ticket was never disputed after verification by tion. According to the appellants, once the deceased was shown to be travelling on a valid ticket and the accidental fall from a passenger train stood probabilised through contemporaneous railway and police records, the A of the Railways Act became operative and the Tribunal gravely erred in rejecting the claim by drawing speculative inferences regarding the route chosen by the passengers. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased was travelling in the alleged train. It was argued that the evidence of the alleged co-passenger suffers from material dictions and no independent witness was produced to corroborate the alleged fall. He further submitted that the conduct attributed to the co-passengers, namely, not pulling the alarm chain or informing the train guard immediately, rendered the 4 to any compensation. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that ppreciating the evidence and discarded overwhelming documentary material merely on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself acknowledges recovery of the injured from the railway track, shifting im to Civil Hospital, Khanna, the subsequent inquest proceedings and production of the journey ticket by the deceased's brother. He further submitted that the genuineness of the journey ticket was never disputed after verification by tion. According to the appellants, once the deceased was shown to be travelling on a valid ticket and the accidental fall from a passenger train stood probabilised through contemporaneous railway and police records, the A of the Railways Act became operative and the Tribunal gravely erred in rejecting the claim by drawing speculative Railways supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased was travelling in the alleged train. It passenger suffers from material dictions and no independent witness was produced to corroborate the alleged passengers, namely, not pulling the alarm chain or informing the train guard immediately, rendered the MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 entire version doubtful. According to the respondent, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record and no interference was called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 11. The controvers around two questions, namely, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey ticket and whether his death resulted from an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 12. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice that the liability created under Section 124 strict liability. Once it is est suffered death or injury on account of an untoward incident, the Railway Administration becomes liable to pay statutory compensation irrespective of negligence. The only exceptions are those specifical Section 124-A, namely suicide, self natural cause, none of which has been pleaded or proved by the respondent in the present case. 13. The principal reason which weigh dismissing the claim petition is that the version put forth by the appellants regarding travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter boarding a train towards Jalandhar appeared improbable. The Tribunal further ob passengers intended to travel to Bihar, they could have boarded another train from 2018 (O&M) on doubtful. According to the respondent, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record and no interference was called for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The controversy involved in the present appeal essentially revolves around two questions, namely, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey ticket and whether his death resulted from an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section A of the Railways Act. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice that the liability created under Section 124 . Once it is established that the victim was a bona fide passenger and suffered death or injury on account of an untoward incident, the Railway Administration becomes liable to pay statutory compensation irrespective of negligence. The only exceptions are those specifical A, namely suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or natural cause, none of which has been pleaded or proved by the respondent in the The principal reason which weigh dismissing the claim petition is that the version put forth by the appellants regarding travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter boarding a train towards Jalandhar appeared improbable. The Tribunal further ob passengers intended to travel to Bihar, they could have boarded another train from on doubtful. According to the respondent, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record and no interference was called for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper y involved in the present appeal essentially revolves around two questions, namely, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey ticket and whether his death resulted from an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice that the liability created under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is one of ablished that the victim was a bona fide passenger and suffered death or injury on account of an untoward incident, the Railway Administration becomes liable to pay statutory compensation irrespective of negligence. The only exceptions are those specifically enumerated in the proviso to inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or natural cause, none of which has been pleaded or proved by the respondent in the The principal reason which weighed with the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is that the version put forth by the appellants regarding travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter boarding a train towards Jalandhar appeared improbable. The Tribunal further observed that had the passengers intended to travel to Bihar, they could have boarded another train from 5 on doubtful. According to the respondent, the learned Tribunal rightly I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- y involved in the present appeal essentially revolves around two questions, namely, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey ticket and whether his death resulted from an 123(c)(2) read with Section Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to A of the Railways Act is one of ablished that the victim was a bona fide passenger and suffered death or injury on account of an untoward incident, the Railway Administration becomes liable to pay statutory compensation irrespective of ly enumerated in the proviso to inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or natural cause, none of which has been pleaded or proved by the respondent in the ed with the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is that the version put forth by the appellants regarding travelling from Mohali to Sirhind by bus and thereafter boarding a train served that had the passengers intended to travel to Bihar, they could have boarded another train from MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 Ambala instead of proceeding towards Jalandhar. Such reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, travels beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny contemplated under the Railways Act. The choice of route adopted by a passenger cannot be made the sole basis for rejecting an otherwise genuine claim. It is common knowledge that passengers frequently choose different routes or intermediate stations to obta accommodation. The Tribunal substituted its own notion of what would have been a more convenient route for the actual conduct of the passengers. Such an approach is founded on conjectures and surmises rather 13.1 Equally untenable is the observation of the Tribunal that the co passengers ought to have pulled the alarm chain or immediately informed the Guard of the train. Human conduct cannot be measured by a straight formula. Every individual reacts differently in moments of sudden shock and panic. Mere omission to pull the alarm chain cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that no accident occurred, particularly when the contemporaneous official records corroborate the occur itself records that on receipt of information regarding an injured person lying near the railway track, the Station Master, Khanna, immediately informed the Station Master, Chawa, who, in turn, Moreover, even the death report prepared by the GRPS Police Station records that the death occurred during treatment of the injuries incurred from falling of the running train. The injured was removed to Civil Hospi succumbed to his injuries. The report further notices that the brother of the deceased produced the journey ticket before the investigating authorities during the inquest proceedings and that the same was verified by the Railway Admin 2018 (O&M) Ambala instead of proceeding towards Jalandhar. Such reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, travels beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny ntemplated under the Railways Act. The choice of route adopted by a passenger cannot be made the sole basis for rejecting an otherwise genuine claim. It is common knowledge that passengers frequently choose different routes or intermediate stations to obtain reserved seats or comparatively less crowded accommodation. The Tribunal substituted its own notion of what would have been a more convenient route for the actual conduct of the passengers. Such an approach is founded on conjectures and surmises rather than legal evidence. Equally untenable is the observation of the Tribunal that the co passengers ought to have pulled the alarm chain or immediately informed the Guard of the train. Human conduct cannot be measured by a straight Every individual reacts differently in moments of sudden shock and panic. Mere omission to pull the alarm chain cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that no accident occurred, particularly when the contemporaneous official records corroborate the occurrence. Significantly, the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself records that on receipt of information regarding an injured person lying near the railway track, the Station Master, Khanna, immediately informed the Station Master, Chawa, who, in turn, informed the Government Railway Police. Moreover, even the death report prepared by the GRPS Police Station records that the death occurred during treatment of the injuries incurred from falling of the The injured was removed to Civil Hospi succumbed to his injuries. The report further notices that the brother of the deceased produced the journey ticket before the investigating authorities during the inquest proceedings and that the same was verified by the Railway Admin Ambala instead of proceeding towards Jalandhar. Such reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, travels beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny ntemplated under the Railways Act. The choice of route adopted by a passenger cannot be made the sole basis for rejecting an otherwise genuine claim. It is common knowledge that passengers frequently choose different routes or in reserved seats or comparatively less crowded accommodation. The Tribunal substituted its own notion of what would have been a more convenient route for the actual conduct of the passengers. Such an approach than legal evidence. Equally untenable is the observation of the Tribunal that the co passengers ought to have pulled the alarm chain or immediately informed the Guard of the train. Human conduct cannot be measured by a straight-jacket Every individual reacts differently in moments of sudden shock and panic. Mere omission to pull the alarm chain cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that no accident occurred, particularly when the contemporaneous official records rence. Significantly, the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself records that on receipt of information regarding an injured person lying near the railway track, the Station Master, Khanna, immediately informed the Station d the Government Railway Police. Moreover, even the death report prepared by the GRPS Police Station records that the death occurred during treatment of the injuries incurred from falling of the The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Khanna, where he succumbed to his injuries. The report further notices that the brother of the deceased produced the journey ticket before the investigating authorities during the inquest proceedings and that the same was verified by the Railway Administration. 6 Ambala instead of proceeding towards Jalandhar. Such reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, travels beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny ntemplated under the Railways Act. The choice of route adopted by a passenger cannot be made the sole basis for rejecting an otherwise genuine claim. It is common knowledge that passengers frequently choose different routes or in reserved seats or comparatively less crowded accommodation. The Tribunal substituted its own notion of what would have been a more convenient route for the actual conduct of the passengers. Such an approach Equally untenable is the observation of the Tribunal that the co- passengers ought to have pulled the alarm chain or immediately informed the jacket Every individual reacts differently in moments of sudden shock and panic. Mere omission to pull the alarm chain cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that no accident occurred, particularly when the contemporaneous official records rence. Significantly, the Divisional Railway Manager's report itself records that on receipt of information regarding an injured person lying near the railway track, the Station Master, Khanna, immediately informed the Station d the Government Railway Police. Moreover, even the death report prepared by the GRPS Police Station records that the death occurred during treatment of the injuries incurred from falling of the tal, Khanna, where he succumbed to his injuries. The report further notices that the brother of the deceased produced the journey ticket before the investigating authorities during the istration. MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 Thus, the official records maintained by the respondent themselves establish that the deceased was found adjacent to the railway track soon after the occurrence and that a valid journey ticket was produced without undue delay produced on record by the respondents that the journey ticket produced on record was procured or planted one or neither any record was produced in this regard, nor any witness was examined in support weight to these contemporaneous official records and instead rejected the claim by drawing speculative inferences. Documentary evidence prepared in the ordinary course of official duties carries considerable evidentiary value and cannot be discarded merely because no i produced. 13.2 The Supreme Court in (2008) 9 SCC 527 passenger from a train carrying passengers", held that the provisions of the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and deserve liberal construction so as to advance the object of providing compens was further observed that the expression "accidental falling" ought not to receive a narrow or pedantic interpretation. Likewise, in India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 accidentally falls from a running train, the Railway Administration cannot avoid liability merely because the victim may have been standing near the door or had adopted an unsafe posture while travelling. Such conduct does not self-inflicted injury so as to attract the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A. 2018 (O&M) Thus, the official records maintained by the respondent themselves establish that the deceased was found adjacent to the railway track soon after the occurrence and that a valid journey ticket was produced without undue delay oduced on record by the respondents that the journey ticket produced on record was procured or planted one or neither any record was produced in this regard, nor any witness was examined in support. The Tribunal, however, failed to accord due se contemporaneous official records and instead rejected the claim by drawing speculative inferences. Documentary evidence prepared in the ordinary course of official duties carries considerable evidentiary value and cannot be discarded merely because no independent eyewitness to the actual fall was The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, while interpreting the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", held that the provisions of the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and deserve liberal construction so as to advance the object of providing compensation to victims of railway accidents. It was further observed that the expression "accidental falling" ought not to receive a narrow or pedantic interpretation. Likewise, in (2010) 12 SCC 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour accidentally falls from a running train, the Railway Administration cannot avoid liability merely because the victim may have been standing near the door or had adopted an unsafe posture while travelling. Such conduct does not inflicted injury so as to attract the exceptions contained in the proviso to Thus, the official records maintained by the respondent themselves establish that the deceased was found adjacent to the railway track soon after the occurrence and that a valid journey ticket was produced without undue delay. No evidence was oduced on record by the respondents that the journey ticket produced on record was procured or planted one or neither any record was produced in this regard, nor . The Tribunal, however, failed to accord due se contemporaneous official records and instead rejected the claim by drawing speculative inferences. Documentary evidence prepared in the ordinary course of official duties carries considerable evidentiary value and cannot be ndependent eyewitness to the actual fall was Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar while interpreting the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", held that the provisions of the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and deserve liberal construction so as to ation to victims of railway accidents. It was further observed that the expression "accidental falling" ought not to receive a narrow or pedantic interpretation. Likewise, in Jameela and others v. Union of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once a passenger accidentally falls from a running train, the Railway Administration cannot avoid liability merely because the victim may have been standing near the door or had adopted an unsafe posture while travelling. Such conduct does not amount to a inflicted injury so as to attract the exceptions contained in the proviso to 7 Thus, the official records maintained by the respondent themselves establish that the deceased was found adjacent to the railway track soon after the occurrence and . No evidence was oduced on record by the respondents that the journey ticket produced on record was procured or planted one or neither any record was produced in this regard, nor . The Tribunal, however, failed to accord due se contemporaneous official records and instead rejected the claim by drawing speculative inferences. Documentary evidence prepared in the ordinary course of official duties carries considerable evidentiary value and cannot be ndependent eyewitness to the actual fall was Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, while interpreting the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", held that the provisions of the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and deserve liberal construction so as to ation to victims of railway accidents. It was further observed that the expression "accidental falling" ought not to receive a Jameela and others v. Union of t held that once a passenger accidentally falls from a running train, the Railway Administration cannot avoid liability merely because the victim may have been standing near the door or had amount to a inflicted injury so as to attract the exceptions contained in the proviso to MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 13.3 Having considered the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based assumptions than on legal evidence. The Tribunal ignored the contemporaneous railway and police records, failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the verified journey ticket and rejected the claim on speculative considerations relating to the route adopted by the passengers and their post cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, this Court holds that the deceased was a bona fide passenger occurred on acc passenger train, within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124 of the Railways Act. The contrary findings recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal are, therefore, set asid 14. In the present case, 17.07.2015, whereas the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition on 17.10.2017. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended b of statutory compensation payable in case of death from , with effect from would be payable where the accident occurred prior to the amendment but the claim was decided thereafter is no longer res integra. in Union of India v. Radha Yadav interpreting the amended Compensation Rules, held that where the award is made after 01.01.2017, the claimant would be entitled to compensation of even if the accident had occurred prior thereto, since the amount payable ca less than the amount prescribed on the date of adjudication. The said principle has 2018 (O&M) Having considered the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based assumptions than on legal evidence. The Tribunal ignored the contemporaneous railway and police records, failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the verified journey ticket and rejected the claim on speculative considerations relating to the route adopted by the passengers and their post- cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, this Court holds that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey ticket and that his death occurred on account of an untoward incident passenger train, within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124 of the Railways Act. The contrary findings recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal are, therefore, set aside. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on , whereas the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition on . The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended by Notification dated 22.12.2016, enhanced the amount of statutory compensation payable in case of death from , with effect from 01.01.2017. The question whether the enhanced compensation would be payable where the accident occurred prior to the amendment but the claim was decided thereafter is no longer res integra. Union of India v. Radha Yadav, reported as interpreting the amended Compensation Rules, held that where the award is made after 01.01.2017, the claimant would be entitled to compensation of even if the accident had occurred prior thereto, since the amount payable ca less than the amount prescribed on the date of adjudication. The said principle has Having considered the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based more on assumptions than on legal evidence. The Tribunal ignored the contemporaneous railway and police records, failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the verified journey ticket and rejected the claim on speculative considerations relating to the -occurrence conduct. Such findings cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, this Court holds that the deceased was a travelling on a valid journey ticket and that his death untoward incident, namely accidental fall from a passenger train, within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124 of the Railways Act. The contrary findings recorded by the learned Railway it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on , whereas the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition on . The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) y Notification dated 22.12.2016, enhanced the amount of statutory compensation payable in case of death from ₹4,00,000/- to ₹8,00,000/ . The question whether the enhanced compensation would be payable where the accident occurred prior to the amendment but the claim was decided thereafter is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2019 (3) SCC 410, while interpreting the amended Compensation Rules, held that where the award is made after 01.01.2017, the claimant would be entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000/ even if the accident had occurred prior thereto, since the amount payable cannot be less than the amount prescribed on the date of adjudication. The said principle has 8 Having considered the entire evidence on record, this Court is more on assumptions than on legal evidence. The Tribunal ignored the contemporaneous railway and police records, failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the verified journey ticket and rejected the claim on speculative considerations relating to the occurrence conduct. Such findings cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, this Court holds that the deceased was a travelling on a valid journey ticket and that his death , namely accidental fall from a passenger train, within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The contrary findings recorded by the learned Railway it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on , whereas the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition on . The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) y Notification dated 22.12.2016, enhanced the amount 8,00,000/- . The question whether the enhanced compensation would be payable where the accident occurred prior to the amendment but the The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the amended Compensation Rules, held that where the award is made 8,00,000/-, nnot be less than the amount prescribed on the date of adjudication. The said principle has MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.719 of 2018 consistently been followed thereafter in claims arising under Section 124 Railways Act. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, since the claim petition came to be decided by the Tribunal on after the amendment enhancing the statutory compensation came into force, the appellants are entitled to compensation of 15. Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization The respondent- a period of eight weeks judgment, failing which the amount shall carry the date of default till realization. 16. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, within receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the amount to the appe entitlement, in accordance with law. 17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 01, 202 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2018 (O&M) consistently been followed thereafter in claims arising under Section 124 Railways Act. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, since the claim petition came to be decided by the Tribunal on after the amendment enhancing the statutory compensation came into force, the appellants are entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000/ Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) together with from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization -Railway Administration shall deposit the aforesaid amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry the date of default till realization. The respondent shall deposit the entire amount before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, within receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the amount to the appellants, after due verification of their identity and entitlement, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No consistently been followed thereafter in claims arising under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, since the claim petition came to be decided by the Tribunal on 17.10.2017, i.e. after the amendment enhancing the statutory compensation came into force, the 8,00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization ation shall deposit the aforesaid amount within from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from respondent shall deposit the entire amount before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall llants, after due verification of their identity and Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 9 A of the Railways Act. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, , i.e. after the amendment enhancing the statutory compensation came into force, the Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization. ation shall deposit the aforesaid amount within from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this from respondent shall deposit the entire amount before the learned from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall llants, after due verification of their identity and Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt