FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. Vs Vs Vs Vs UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA 1111 The date when The date when The date when The date when 2222 The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced 3333 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4444 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is 5555 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1.1.1.1. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124 account of the death of their father, Kishan Lal, came 2.2.2.2. Briefly stating, the appellants, being the minor children of deceased Kishan Lal, instituted the claim petition through their next friend Chander Pal, pleading that on 16.04.2018, the deceased, accompanied by Ram Bilas, reach Ambala Cantt. Railway Station for travelling to Delhi and thereafter to his native 2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH FAO FAO FAO FAO No. No. No. No.3273 3273 3273 3273 MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. MASTER VIKAS (MINOR) AND ANR. UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA The date when The date when The date when The date when the judgment was reserved the judgment was reserved the judgment was reserved the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Subhash Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Arihant Goyal, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 12.01.2021 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, seeking compensation under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124 account of the death of their father, Kishan Lal, came Briefly stating, the appellants, being the minor children of deceased Kishan Lal, instituted the claim petition through their next friend Chander Pal, pleading that on 16.04.2018, the deceased, accompanied by Ram Bilas, reach Ambala Cantt. Railway Station for travelling to Delhi and thereafter to his native IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 3273 3273 3273 3273 of of of of 2021 2021 2021 2021 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) …Appe …Appe …Appe …Appellant llant llant llantssss …Respondent …Respondent …Respondent …Respondent the judgment was reserved the judgment was reserved the judgment was reserved the judgment was reserved 10 10 10 10.0.0.0.07777....202 202 202 2026666 The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced 33331111.0.0.0.07777.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 33331111.0.0.0.07777.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced pronounced pronounced Full Full Full Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA Counsel, UOI By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of their father, Kishan Lal, came to be dismissed. Briefly stating, the appellants, being the minor children of deceased Kishan Lal, instituted the claim petition through their next friend Chander Pal, pleading that on 16.04.2018, the deceased, accompanied by Ram Bilas, reach Ambala Cantt. Railway Station for travelling to Delhi and thereafter to his native 1 By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking A of the Railways Act, 1989 on Briefly stating, the appellants, being the minor children of deceased Kishan Lal, instituted the claim petition through their next friend Chander Pal, pleading that on 16.04.2018, the deceased, accompanied by Ram Bilas, reached Ambala Cantt. Railway Station for travelling to Delhi and thereafter to his native MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 village in District Kanpur. It was alleged that after purchasing a valid second journey ticket from Ambala Cantt. to Delhi, the deceased boarded a passenger train and, while the train was passing between Doda Kheri and Kurukshetra Railway Stations on 17.04.2018, accidentally fell from the running train, sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Claiming the occurrence to be an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the appellants sought statutory compensation. 3.3.3.3. The respondents contested the claim by denying that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an untoward incident. It wa pleaded that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, the DRM's report did not support the claim, no incident of accidental fall was reported by the train staff, and the injuries indicated a run train. 4.4.4.4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: - “(i) the incident? (ii) Sections (iii) (iv) Relief. 5.5.5.5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, primarily on account of non nature of injuries suggested running train. The Tribunal also held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan 2021 (O&M) village in District Kanpur. It was alleged that after purchasing a valid second journey ticket from Ambala Cantt. to Delhi, the deceased boarded a passenger train nd, while the train was passing between Doda Kheri and Kurukshetra Railway Stations on 17.04.2018, accidentally fell from the running train, sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Claiming the occurrence to be an "untoward incident" eaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the appellants sought statutory compensation. The respondents contested the claim by denying that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an untoward incident. It wa pleaded that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, the DRM's report did not support the claim, no incident of accidental fall was reported by the train staff, and the injuries indicated a run-over case rather than an accidental fall from a On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following (i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident? (ii) Whether the alleged occurrence was an untoward incident under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? (iii) Whether the applicants were the dependants of the deceased? (iv) Relief.” Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, primarily on account of non-recovery of the journey ticket. It further concluded that the nature of injuries suggested a run-over case and not an accidental fall from a running train. The Tribunal also held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan village in District Kanpur. It was alleged that after purchasing a valid second-class journey ticket from Ambala Cantt. to Delhi, the deceased boarded a passenger train nd, while the train was passing between Doda Kheri and Kurukshetra Railway Stations on 17.04.2018, accidentally fell from the running train, sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Claiming the occurrence to be an "untoward incident" eaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the appellants sought The respondents contested the claim by denying that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an untoward incident. It wa pleaded that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, the DRM's report did not support the claim, no incident of accidental fall was reported by the train over case rather than an accidental fall from a On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of Whether the alleged occurrence was an untoward incident under A of the Railways Act, 1989? Whether the applicants were the dependants of the deceased? Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, primarily recovery of the journey ticket. It further concluded that the over case and not an accidental fall from a running train. The Tribunal also held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan 2 class journey ticket from Ambala Cantt. to Delhi, the deceased boarded a passenger train nd, while the train was passing between Doda Kheri and Kurukshetra Railway Stations on 17.04.2018, accidentally fell from the running train, sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Claiming the occurrence to be an "untoward incident" eaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the appellants sought The respondents contested the claim by denying that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an untoward incident. It was pleaded that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, the DRM's report did not support the claim, no incident of accidental fall was reported by the train over case rather than an accidental fall from a On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of Whether the alleged occurrence was an untoward incident under Whether the applicants were the dependants of the deceased? Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, primarily recovery of the journey ticket. It further concluded that the over case and not an accidental fall from a running train. The Tribunal also held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 Lal was not satisfactorily proved, as the alleged identification by Ram Bilas was not supported by substantive evidence. Co dismissed vide judgment dated 12.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants. 6.6.6.6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal misread the oral and doc testimony of AW journey ticket before boarding the train and that mere non could not negate his status as a bona fid medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances clearly established that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from a running train and not in a run incident. The findings regarding identification of th as being contrary to the evidence available on record. 7.7.7.7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supportted the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving occurrence constituted an untoward incident. It was further contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and no interference was warranted. 8.8.8.8. I have heard learned counsel for book. 9.9.9.9. The Tribunal primarily declined compensation on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, he could not be regarded as a bona fide passenger. In the con Court, the said approach is contrary to the settled principles governing claims 2021 (O&M) Lal was not satisfactorily proved, as the alleged identification by Ram Bilas was not supported by substantive evidence. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal misread the oral and documentary evidence on record. It was contended that the testimony of AW-1, Ram Bilas, established that the deceased purchased a valid journey ticket before boarding the train and that mere non could not negate his status as a bona fide passenger. He further argued that the medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances clearly established that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from a running train and not in a run incident. The findings regarding identification of th as being contrary to the evidence available on record. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supportted the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the occurrence constituted an untoward incident. It was further contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and no interference was warranted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The Tribunal primarily declined compensation on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, he could not be regarded as a bona fide passenger. In the con Court, the said approach is contrary to the settled principles governing claims Lal was not satisfactorily proved, as the alleged identification by Ram Bilas was nsequently, the claim petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal umentary evidence on record. It was contended that the 1, Ram Bilas, established that the deceased purchased a valid journey ticket before boarding the train and that mere non-recovery of the ticket e passenger. He further argued that the medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances clearly established that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from a running train and not in a run-over incident. The findings regarding identification of the deceased were also assailed as being contrary to the evidence available on record. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supportted the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the occurrence constituted an untoward incident. It was further contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and no interference was warranted. the parties and perused the paper The Tribunal primarily declined compensation on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, he could not be regarded as a bona fide passenger. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said approach is contrary to the settled principles governing claims 3 Lal was not satisfactorily proved, as the alleged identification by Ram Bilas was nsequently, the claim petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal umentary evidence on record. It was contended that the 1, Ram Bilas, established that the deceased purchased a valid recovery of the ticket e passenger. He further argued that the medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances clearly established that the over e deceased were also assailed Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supportted the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the occurrence constituted an untoward incident. It was further contended that the the parties and perused the paper- The Tribunal primarily declined compensation on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, he sidered opinion of this Court, the said approach is contrary to the settled principles governing claims MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 under the Railways Act. The testimony of AW accompanied the deceased to Ambala Cantt. Railway Station, where the latter purchased a second boarded the train. Nothing substantial could be elicited during his cross examination so as to discredit his version. Merely because the original ticket could not be recovered aft disbelieve the entire case of the claimants, particularly under the circumstances when the deceased fell down from a running train and his belongings were not traceable. 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 In Supreme Court held that mere absence or non conclusive to deny the status of a bona fide passenger. Once the claimants adduce evidence showing that the victim was t discharged and the onus shifts upon the Railways to establish circumstances disentitling the claimants from compensation. In the present case, except relying upon the non-recovery of the ticket and the opinion no cogent evidence has been produced by the Railways to establish that the deceased was travelling without authority or was otherwise not a bona fide passenger. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sust 10. 10. 10. 10. The next question pertains to the nature of the occurrence. According to the appellants, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train, whereas the Railways have attempted to project the occurrence as a run crossing the railway track. The post sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death. The contemporaneous 2021 (O&M) under the Railways Act. The testimony of AW accompanied the deceased to Ambala Cantt. Railway Station, where the latter hased a second-class passenger ticket for travelling to Delhi and thereafter boarded the train. Nothing substantial could be elicited during his cross examination so as to discredit his version. Merely because the original ticket could not be recovered after the accident cannot, by itself, be a circumstance sufficient to he entire case of the claimants, particularly under the circumstances when the deceased fell down from a running train and his belongings were not In Uni Uni Uni Union of India v. Rina Devi on of India v. Rina Devi on of India v. Rina Devi on of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, , (2019) 3 SCC 572, , (2019) 3 SCC 572, , (2019) 3 SCC 572, Supreme Court held that mere absence or non- conclusive to deny the status of a bona fide passenger. Once the claimants adduce evidence showing that the victim was travelling by train, the initial burden stands discharged and the onus shifts upon the Railways to establish circumstances disentitling the claimants from compensation. In the present case, except relying recovery of the ticket and the opinion no cogent evidence has been produced by the Railways to establish that the deceased was travelling without authority or was otherwise not a bona fide passenger. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sust The next question pertains to the nature of the occurrence. According to the appellants, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train, whereas the Railways have attempted to project the occurrence as a run the railway track. The post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death. The contemporaneous under the Railways Act. The testimony of AW-1 Ram Bilas reveals that he accompanied the deceased to Ambala Cantt. Railway Station, where the latter class passenger ticket for travelling to Delhi and thereafter boarded the train. Nothing substantial could be elicited during his cross examination so as to discredit his version. Merely because the original ticket could er the accident cannot, by itself, be a circumstance sufficient to he entire case of the claimants, particularly under the circumstances when the deceased fell down from a running train and his belongings were not , (2019) 3 SCC 572, , (2019) 3 SCC 572, , (2019) 3 SCC 572, , (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Hon'ble -recovery of a journey ticket is not conclusive to deny the status of a bona fide passenger. Once the claimants adduce ravelling by train, the initial burden stands discharged and the onus shifts upon the Railways to establish circumstances disentitling the claimants from compensation. In the present case, except relying recovery of the ticket and the opinion expressed in the DRM's report, no cogent evidence has been produced by the Railways to establish that the deceased was travelling without authority or was otherwise not a bona fide passenger. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. The next question pertains to the nature of the occurrence. According to the appellants, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train, whereas the Railways have attempted to project the occurrence as a run-over case while mortem report shows that the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death. The contemporaneous 4 1 Ram Bilas reveals that he accompanied the deceased to Ambala Cantt. Railway Station, where the latter class passenger ticket for travelling to Delhi and thereafter boarded the train. Nothing substantial could be elicited during his cross- examination so as to discredit his version. Merely because the original ticket could er the accident cannot, by itself, be a circumstance sufficient to he entire case of the claimants, particularly under the circumstances when the deceased fell down from a running train and his belongings were not the Hon'ble recovery of a journey ticket is not conclusive to deny the status of a bona fide passenger. Once the claimants adduce ravelling by train, the initial burden stands discharged and the onus shifts upon the Railways to establish circumstances disentitling the claimants from compensation. In the present case, except relying expressed in the DRM's report, no cogent evidence has been produced by the Railways to establish that the deceased was travelling without authority or was otherwise not a bona fide ained. The next question pertains to the nature of the occurrence. According to the appellants, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train, whereas the over case while mortem report shows that the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death. The contemporaneous MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 police record also records recovery of the body from the railway track soon after the occurrence. There is n intended to commit suicide, inflicted injuries upon himself or was engaged in any act falling within the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124 Railways Act. 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 The Tribunal inferred that the occurrence was a run from the nature of injuries and the condition in which the body was found. Such inference, however, is founded upon conjectures rather than legally admissible evidence. In the ab crossing the railway line or that he was run over by a train, such conclusion cannot be sustained, especially when no independent witness was examined by the respondents to even Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, authoritatively held that accidental falling of a passenger from a running train squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" unde the Railways Act and the liability under Section 124 of strict liability. 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the material available on record probabilises the case set accidentally fell from the train during the course of his journey. The respondents have failed to establish any of the exceptions contemplated under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Consequently, the death of treated as having occurred on account of an untoward incident. 2021 (O&M) police record also records recovery of the body from the railway track soon after the occurrence. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased intended to commit suicide, inflicted injuries upon himself or was engaged in any act falling within the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124 The Tribunal inferred that the occurrence was a run from the nature of injuries and the condition in which the body was found. Such inference, however, is founded upon conjectures rather than legally admissible evidence. In the absence of any direct evidence establishing that the deceased was crossing the railway line or that he was run over by a train, such conclusion cannot , especially when no independent witness was examined by the respondents to even prima facie establish this fact. Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, authoritatively held that accidental falling of a passenger from a running train squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" unde the Railways Act and the liability under Section 124 of strict liability. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the material available on record probabilises the case set up by the appellants that the deceased accidentally fell from the train during the course of his journey. The respondents have failed to establish any of the exceptions contemplated under the proviso to A of the Act. Consequently, the death of treated as having occurred on account of an untoward incident. police record also records recovery of the body from the railway track soon after o evidence on record to suggest that the deceased intended to commit suicide, inflicted injuries upon himself or was engaged in any act falling within the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A of the The Tribunal inferred that the occurrence was a run-over case merely from the nature of injuries and the condition in which the body was found. Such inference, however, is founded upon conjectures rather than legally admissible sence of any direct evidence establishing that the deceased was crossing the railway line or that he was run over by a train, such conclusion cannot , especially when no independent witness was examined by the tablish this fact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, authoritatively held that accidental falling of a passenger from a running train squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and the liability under Section 124-A is founded on the principle Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the material up by the appellants that the deceased accidentally fell from the train during the course of his journey. The respondents have failed to establish any of the exceptions contemplated under the proviso to A of the Act. Consequently, the death of the deceased is liable to be treated as having occurred on account of an untoward incident. 5 police record also records recovery of the body from the railway track soon after o evidence on record to suggest that the deceased intended to commit suicide, inflicted injuries upon himself or was engaged in any A of the over case merely from the nature of injuries and the condition in which the body was found. Such inference, however, is founded upon conjectures rather than legally admissible sence of any direct evidence establishing that the deceased was crossing the railway line or that he was run over by a train, such conclusion cannot , especially when no independent witness was examined by the The Hon'ble Supreme Court in has authoritatively held that accidental falling of a passenger from a running train r Section 123(c)(2) of A is founded on the principle Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the material up by the appellants that the deceased accidentally fell from the train during the course of his journey. The respondents have failed to establish any of the exceptions contemplated under the proviso to the deceased is liable to be MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 11. 11. 11. 11. Furthermore, deceased as Kishan Lal was not established as the statement of Ram Bilas recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not substantive evidence. Though a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is undoubtedly not substantive evidence, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. The identity of a deceased person is req available on record and not merely with reference to one document in isolation. The inquest proceedings, post AW-1 constitute relevant circumstanc establish the identity of the deceased. The Tribunal adopted a hyper approach in rejecting the claim solely because AW in his affidavit, the factum of identification b omission cannot outweigh the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence available on record. 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the standard of proof is one than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is expected to adopt a pragmatic approach while appreciating evidence in beneficial legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to victims of railway accidents proceeded on presumptions adverse to the claimants while ignoring the settled legal position that non otherwise genuine claim. Similarly, the inference that the while crossing the railway track is unsupported by any substantive evidence and is founded merely upon surmises. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself both on facts and in law wh 2021 (O&M) Furthermore, the Tribunal further held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan Lal was not established as the statement of Ram Bilas recorded ection 161 Cr.P.C. was not substantive evidence. Though a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is undoubtedly not substantive evidence, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. The identity of a deceased person is required to be determined on the basis of the entire evidence available on record and not merely with reference to one document in isolation. The inquest proceedings, post-mortem report, police records and the testimony of 1 constitute relevant circumstances which, when read conjointly, sufficiently establish the identity of the deceased. The Tribunal adopted a hyper approach in rejecting the claim solely because AW in his affidavit, the factum of identification b omission cannot outweigh the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence available on record. Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is expected to adopt a pragmatic approach while appreciating evidence in beneficial legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to victims of railway accidents proceeded on presumptions adverse to the claimants while ignoring the settled legal position that non-recovery of the journey ticket, by itself, cannot defeat an otherwise genuine claim. Similarly, the inference that the while crossing the railway track is unsupported by any substantive evidence and is founded merely upon surmises. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself both on facts and in law wh the Tribunal further held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan Lal was not established as the statement of Ram Bilas recorded ection 161 Cr.P.C. was not substantive evidence. Though a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is undoubtedly not substantive evidence, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. The identity of a uired to be determined on the basis of the entire evidence available on record and not merely with reference to one document in isolation. mortem report, police records and the testimony of es which, when read conjointly, sufficiently establish the identity of the deceased. The Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the claim solely because AW-1 did not specifically reiterate, in his affidavit, the factum of identification before the police authorities. Such omission cannot outweigh the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are summary in of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is expected to adopt a pragmatic approach while appreciating evidence in beneficial legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to victims of railway accidents. In the present case, the Tribunal proceeded on presumptions adverse to the claimants while ignoring the settled recovery of the journey ticket, by itself, cannot defeat an otherwise genuine claim. Similarly, the inference that the deceased was run over while crossing the railway track is unsupported by any substantive evidence and is founded merely upon surmises. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself both on facts and in law while appreciating 6 the Tribunal further held that the identity of the deceased as Kishan Lal was not established as the statement of Ram Bilas recorded ection 161 Cr.P.C. was not substantive evidence. Though a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is undoubtedly not substantive evidence, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. The identity of a uired to be determined on the basis of the entire evidence available on record and not merely with reference to one document in isolation. mortem report, police records and the testimony of es which, when read conjointly, sufficiently technical 1 did not specifically reiterate, efore the police authorities. Such omission cannot outweigh the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are summary in of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is expected to adopt a pragmatic approach while appreciating evidence in beneficial legislation intended to provide . In the present case, the Tribunal proceeded on presumptions adverse to the claimants while ignoring the settled recovery of the journey ticket, by itself, cannot defeat an deceased was run over while crossing the railway track is unsupported by any substantive evidence and is founded merely upon surmises. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion ile appreciating MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 the evidence on record. The findings recorded under Issues Nos.1 to 3 are thus liable to be set aside. Consequently, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey, that he died in an unto under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124 appellants, being his dependent minor children, are entitled to statutory compensation in accordance with law. 12. 12. 12. 12. The only question that now survives for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to him. accident occurred on Untoward Incidents (Compe 1 of the Schedule appended thereto prescribes a sum of compensation in cases of death resulting from an untoward incident. The compensation payable under Section 124 nature and is not dependent upon proof of negligence or assessment of pecuniary loss. Once the claimants establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred in an untoward incident, they become entitled to the statutory compensation prescribed under the Rules. Accordingly, the appellants, being the dependent minor children of the deceased, are held entitled to compensation of 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 As regards interest, claimant is entitled to reasonable interest on the awarded amount. Accordingly, the appellant shall be entitled to the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of filing of the claim petition till 2021 (O&M) the evidence on record. The findings recorded under Issues Nos.1 to 3 are thus liable to be set aside. Consequently, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey, that he died in an unto under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the appellants, being his dependent minor children, are entitled to statutory compensation in accordance with law. The only question that now survives for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to him. accident occurred on 17.04.2018. On the said date, the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016, as amended, were in force. Entry 1 of the Schedule appended thereto prescribes a sum of compensation in cases of death resulting from an untoward incident. The compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Ac nature and is not dependent upon proof of negligence or assessment of pecuniary loss. Once the claimants establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred in an untoward incident, they become entitled to the statutory compensation prescribed under the Rules. Accordingly, the appellants, being the dependent minor children of the deceased, are held entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only). As regards interest, Rina Devi’s c Rina Devi’s c Rina Devi’s c Rina Devi’s c claimant is entitled to reasonable interest on the awarded amount. Accordingly, the appellant shall be entitled to ₹8,00,000/ 8,00,000/ 8,00,000/ 8,00,000/---- along with the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of filing of the claim petition till realization realization realization realization the evidence on record. The findings recorded under Issues Nos.1 to 3 are thus Consequently, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid journey, that he died in an untoward incident as contemplated A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the appellants, being his dependent minor children, are entitled to statutory The only question that now survives for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to him. It is not in dispute that the alleged . On the said date, the Railway Accidents and nsation) Rules, 2016, as amended, were in force. Entry 1 of the Schedule appended thereto prescribes a sum of ₹8,00,000/- compensation in cases of death resulting from an untoward incident. The A of the Railways Act is statutory in nature and is not dependent upon proof of negligence or assessment of pecuniary loss. Once the claimants establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred in an untoward incident, they become entitled to the statutory compensation prescribed under the Rules. Accordingly, the appellants, being the dependent minor children of the deceased, are held entitled to (Rupees Eight Lakhs only). Rina Devi’s c Rina Devi’s c Rina Devi’s c Rina Devi’s case (supra) ase (supra) ase (supra) ase (supra) further holds that the claimant is entitled to reasonable interest on the awarded amount. Accordingly, the along with interest @ 9% per annum from interest @ 9% per annum from interest @ 9% per annum from interest @ 9% per annum from realization realization realization realization.... In case the respondent fails to 7 the evidence on record. The findings recorded under Issues Nos.1 to 3 are thus Consequently, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger ward incident as contemplated A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the appellants, being his dependent minor children, are entitled to statutory The only question that now survives for consideration is with regard It is not in dispute that the alleged . On the said date, the Railway Accidents and nsation) Rules, 2016, as amended, were in force. Entry as compensation in cases of death resulting from an untoward incident. The t is statutory in nature and is not dependent upon proof of negligence or assessment of pecuniary loss. Once the claimants establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred in an untoward incident, they become entitled to the statutory compensation prescribed under the Rules. Accordingly, the appellants, being the dependent minor children of the deceased, are held entitled to further holds that the claimant is entitled to reasonable interest on the awarded amount. Accordingly, the interest @ 9% per annum from interest @ 9% per annum from interest @ 9% per annum from interest @ 9% per annum from In case the respondent fails to MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.3273 OF 2021 release the awarded amount within certified copy of this judgment, the outstanding amount shall thereafter carry interest @ 12% per annum interest @ 12% per annum interest @ 12% per annum interest @ 12% per annum 13. 13. 13. 13. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to statutory compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- together with intere of the claim application till realization. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July July July July 33331111,,,, 202 202 202 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2021 (O&M) release the awarded amount within three months three months three months three months certified copy of this judgment, the outstanding amount shall thereafter carry interest @ 12% per annum interest @ 12% per annum interest @ 12% per annum interest @ 12% per annum till its realization. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to statutory compensation to the tune of Rs. together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum of the claim application till realization. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No three months three months three months three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the outstanding amount shall thereafter carry Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to statutory compensation to the tune of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of filing Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8 from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the outstanding amount shall thereafter carry Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to statutory compensation to the tune of Rs. from the date of filing Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment