1 FAO-4672-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4672-2022 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS …Appellants Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Atul Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yashpal Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ***** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application preferred under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation on account of the death of Krishan Kumar in an alleged untoward incident, came to be dismissed. 2. The case set up by the appellants is that deceased Krishan Kumar, an ex-serviceman employed with Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, used to commute daily by train between Jita Kheri and Hisar. On 04.08.2019, after completing his duty, he boarded the passenger train from Hisar for Jita Kheri. Owing to heavy rush inside the compartment, he accidentally fell from the moving train between Hansi and Jita Kheri and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. Since he did not return home, his family searched for him and eventually lodged a missing report. On 14.08.2019, the Government Railway Police recovered a dead body lying near the railway track, which was identified by the family TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 15:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 FAO-4672-2022 members on the basis of the Aadhaar Card, Army Identity Card, Railway Identity Card, expired Monthly Season Ticket (MST) and other personal belongings recovered from the spot. Claiming themselves to be the dependants of the deceased, the appellants sought statutory compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim holding that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and further failed to prove that his death resulted from an untoward incident. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal adopted an unduly technical approach while deciding a claim arising under a beneficial legislation. It is argued that the Tribunal ignored the settled position of law that non-recovery of the journey ticket is not by itself sufficient to deny compensation once surrounding circumstances probabilise the case of the claimants. It is further contended that the recovery of various identity documents, railway identity card, army card, cash and the expired Monthly Season Ticket clearly establishes that the deceased was a regular railway commuter and there was no reason for him to be present near the railway track except while travelling by train. It is further argued that the Tribunal based its conclusions upon conjectures by presuming that the deceased might have been murdered elsewhere and his body dumped near the railway track, despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support such hypothesis. Learned counsel submits that such findings are wholly speculative and contrary to the material available on record. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 15:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 FAO-4672-2022 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that the appellants failed to prove purchase of a valid journey ticket and also failed to establish the occurrence of an untoward incident. 6. The principal questions arising for consideration are whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger and whether his death occurred in an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act. The Tribunal primarily rejected the claim on the ground that no valid railway ticket was recovered from the deceased. Such reasoning, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Supreme Court authoritatively held that mere absence of a journey ticket does not negative the claim of the victim being a bona fide passenger. The Court observed that the initial burden upon the claimant stands discharged by filing an affidavit and placing relevant attending circumstances on record, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railway Administration to establish circumstances disentitling the claimant from compensation. 6.1 In the present case, the appellants have produced the affidavit of the son of the deceased besides documentary evidence showing that the deceased was employed at Hisar and regularly travelled by train. The recovery memo further records recovery of the Aadhaar Card, Railway Identity Card, Army Card, PAN Card, mobile phone, cash and an expired Monthly Season Ticket. These circumstances lend considerable support to the version of the appellants that the deceased was a habitual commuter. Merely because the journey ticket could not be recovered TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 15:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 FAO-4672-2022 cannot lead to an irresistible conclusion that no such ticket existed. A person falling from a moving train may lose the journey ticket during the accident or it may remain untraceable owing to the impact of the fall or subsequent events. In Union of India v. Vijay Pandurang Patil, 2008 ACJ 1581, the Court has recognised that non-recovery of the ticket, by itself, cannot defeat an otherwise genuine claim. 6.2. Equally unsustainable is the observation of the Tribunal that it was "hard to believe" that only the journey ticket could have gone missing while the remaining articles were recovered. Such conclusion is based upon mere surmise and is unsupported by any evidence. Judicial findings must rest upon evidence and reasonable inferences, not on personal assumptions regarding what is or is not probable. The Tribunal has further doubted the appellants' case because the body was recovered after ten days. Delay in recovery of the dead body, by itself, cannot conclusively establish that no railway accident occurred. It is a matter of common experience that in cases where a body falls in bushes or agricultural fields adjoining the railway track, particularly during monsoon season, immediate discovery may not always be possible. 6.3 More importantly, the Tribunal ventured into holding that the deceased "might have been killed elsewhere and his body dumped near the railway track". Such finding is conspicuously unsupported by any investigation, forensic evidence or police record. Neither the DRM inquiry nor the police investigation attributes the death to homicide. Courts cannot substitute conjecture for evidence. The Tribunal also attached undue significance to the absence of any report by the Guard or Driver regarding the incident. The issue is no longer res integra. In Mamta v. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 15:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 FAO-4672-2022 Union of India, 2016 (1) PLR 600, this Court held that merely because no passenger informed the railway authorities or the alarm chain was not pulled, it cannot be inferred that no untoward incident had taken place. In modern-day travel, passengers frequently avoid involvement in such incidents. 7. Further, the expression "untoward incident" occurring in Section 123(c) deserves liberal construction consistent with the beneficial object of the legislation. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, as well as Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, the Supreme Court held that accidental fall from a moving train squarely falls within the ambit of an untoward incident and the provisions of Section 124-A must receive purposive interpretation. Once the appellants discharged their initial burden by placing on record the attending circumstances and documentary evidence, the burden shifted upon the Railway Administration to establish that the case fell within any of the exceptions carved out under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No direct evidence has been adduced to establish that the deceased committed suicide, attempted suicide, indulged in self-inflicted injury, committed any criminal act or was in a state of intoxication so as to attract the statutory exceptions. Even the telephonic conversation between the son of the deceased and the unknown caller who allegedly saw Kirshan Kumar roaming in the train in an inebriated condition is hearsay in nature, the caller having neither been identified nor examined. In such circumstances, neither the statement made by the son of deceased during enquiry before DRM nor even the report based thereupon could have been taken to be as the conclusive proof of TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 15:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 FAO-4672-2022 Krishan Kumar being under intoxication on the day of accident especially, hen the information given by the stranger was merely based on his observation. On the other hand, the statement of stranger about the presence of deceased in the train on the fateful day lends supports to the version of the appellants-claimants. The Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, thus misdirected itself by proceeding on assumptions rather than legal evidence and by ignoring the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court governing claims under the Railways Act. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 17.06.2022 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 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. The amount shall be apportioned amongst the appellants in the same ratio as may be determined by the Tribunal, if not already specified. The respondent-Railway Administration is directed to 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 interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till realization. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 17, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 15:47 I agree to specified portions of this document