Can a Railway Accident Compensation Claim Be Rejected Merely Because the Journey Ticket Was Not Recovered? Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates the Burden of Proof Under the Railways Act
Case Name: Punita Devi & Others v. Union of India
Date of Judgment: 24 July 2026
Citation: FAO No. 1935 of 2015
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere non-recovery of a railway ticket from the deceased cannot, by itself, disprove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Once the claimants discharge the initial burden by leading credible evidence through affidavits and surrounding circumstances, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim. The Court further held that accidental fall from a passenger train constitutes an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the legal heirs to statutory compensation.
Summary: The appellants, being the widow and other dependants of the deceased Abhimanyu, challenged the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, which had dismissed their claim for compensation arising out of the death of the deceased in a railway accident. According to the claimants, the deceased, along with his daughter and son-in-law, had purchased computerized railway tickets for travel from Amritsar to Ludhiana and boarded the Jan Nayak Express. Upon reaching Ludhiana Railway Station, while attempting to alight from the train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell, sustaining grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he succumbed to his injuries during the intervening night of 11 and 12 January 2012. The Railways contested the claim by asserting that no valid railway ticket had been recovered from the deceased and, therefore, he could not be treated as a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation under the Railways Act. Accepting this contention, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants had failed to establish both the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger and the occurrence of an untoward incident.
Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the Tribunal had committed a serious error in disregarding the computerized railway ticket merely because it was not recovered during the inquest proceedings. It was contended that the ticket carried a unique serial number, date and time of issuance, making any allegation of fabrication untenable. The appellants further relied upon the affidavits of the widow and the son-in-law, who was an eye-witness to the incident, along with the inquest report, the final report prepared by the Government Railway Police, and the post-mortem report, all of which consistently supported the case that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries after accidentally falling from the train while alighting at Ludhiana Railway Station. The Railways, on the other hand, maintained that the absence of the journey ticket disentitled the claimants from seeking compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, reiterating that the initial burden upon the claimant is discharged by filing affidavits and producing surrounding circumstances establishing that the deceased was travelling as a passenger. Once such evidence is led, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim, and the mere absence or non-recovery of a railway ticket cannot, by itself, negate the status of a bona fide passenger. The Court found that the affidavits of the widow and the eye-witness son-in-law remained consistent and unrebutted, while the computerized ticket, inquest report, post-mortem report and the final police report collectively established that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the Jan Nayak Express while deboarding at Ludhiana. Relying upon Rathi Menon v. Union of India, the Court further held that accidental falling of a passenger from a train squarely falls within the expression “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Consequently, the Tribunal’s findings were held to be legally unsustainable. On the question of compensation, the Court applied the principles laid down in Rina Devi and Union of India v. Radha Yadav, holding that compensation payable on the date of the accident together with reasonable interest must first be computed and, where such amount is lower than the compensation prescribed on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to the higher amount.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, and held the appellants entitled to compensation of ₹4,00,000 in accordance with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as applicable on the date of the accident. The Court further directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition until realization. It clarified that if the compensation computed together with interest was lower than the amount prescribed under the Rules as on the date of the award, the claimants would be entitled to the higher amount in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rina Devi and Radha Yadav.