The Delhi High Court, in an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal which had denied compensation to an injured claimant on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered and the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that loss of a ticket cannot by itself defeat a genuine claim once the claimant discharges the initial burden of proving travel, and emphasised the beneficial nature of railway compensation legislation.
The appeal arose from a claim filed by the injured passenger, who had undertaken a journey from Dausa to Delhi after purchasing a valid second-class ticket. Upon reaching Delhi Cantt. railway station in an overcrowded train, he accidentally fell due to a sudden jerk and sustained a crush injury resulting in amputation of his right leg below the knee. The Railway administration contested the claim, asserting that no ticket was recovered, there was no eyewitness, and inconsistencies existed in the claimant’s narration of the incident.
The Tribunal accepted the Railways’ objections and held that the claimant was not a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act.
Before the High Court, the claimant relied on the DRM report recording information from a railway police official that a person had fallen from the train at the relevant platform and was taken to the hospital, as well as the medical record noting “fall from train.” The Railways reiterated the absence of a recovered ticket, lack of eyewitness testimony, variations in the claimant’s statements, and the train guard’s assertion that no incident was reported to him.
Allowing the appeal, the Court held that once a claimant asserts travel with a valid ticket and establishes foundational facts, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to rebut the claim, and mere non-recovery of a ticket is insufficient to deny compensation. The Court found that the DRM report and contemporaneous medical evidence corroborated the occurrence of a fall from the train, rendering the Tribunal’s reliance solely on the guard’s statement misplaced.
Reiterating that the Railways Act and the compensation framework constitute beneficial legislation requiring a non-technical approach, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s findings and held the claimant entitled to compensation.
On the question of quantum, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, holding that where the revised statutory compensation as on the date of award is lower than the compensation payable as on the date of accident with interest, the higher amount must be granted in keeping with the beneficial object of the statute. The Railways were accordingly directed to release the higher of the two amounts within four weeks.
The appeal was thereby allowed in the above terms.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Leena Tuteja, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI with Ms. Ishita Kadyan, Advocate.
