In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against a judgment dated 09-08-2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for assessing the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.
On 16-02-2016, the deceased, along with his friend, was traveling from Azadpur to Narela by train. It was asserted that they purchased a valid journey ticket, and the deceased fell from the running train while undertaking the journey, because of which he sustained fatal injuries. Upon being taken to the hospital, he was declared dead.
By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim application on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the alleged accident and ‘untoward incident’ as per the Railways Act, 1989 (Act).
The appellants contended that mere non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself, be conclusive of the fact that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It was asserted that the DD entries as well as the MLC, and post-mortem report clearly demonstrated that the deceased had suffered multiple grievous injuries, which were consistent with a fall from the train.
The respondents contended that the deceased had been described as a pedestrian in the Detailed Accident Report (DAR), which indicated that he had trespassed onto the railway track, and that the accident occurred due to his own negligence.
The Court noted that the earliest information regarding the incident was reflected in the DD Entry recorded at the police post, wherein it was mentioned that an ‘injured’ person was found near the railway line near the Azadpur Bus Terminal. It was stated that the hospital record prepared immediately upon arrival showed the deceased to be ‘brought dead’, and established close proximity to the incident, which could not be disregarded.
It was stated that the DD entries, the MLC, as well as the post-mortem report, consistently recorded the incident as a ‘railway accident’ and that there was nothing on record to suggest anything contrary. The Court noted that the DRM report relied upon by the Tribunal to conclude that the accident occurred due to trespass and the deceased person’s own negligence was prepared after a lapse of two years, which reduced its evidentiary value. The Court also said that the classification of the deceased as a ‘pedestrian’ in the DAR is a post-incident classification without any evidence, which cannot be relied upon.
Thus, the Court stated that the Tribunal had erred in relying on the DRM report and the DAR while ignoring the medical evidence and the contemporaneous record. It was said that once it is established that the deceased had suffered fatal injuries in a railway occurrence, the same would be covered under the definition of an ‘untoward incident’, unless the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions.
Regarding the fact that no journey ticket was recovered, the Court found from the record that jamatalashi of the deceased had not been conducted. Referring to Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court said that the Tribunal’s approach of rejecting the claim primarily for non-recovery of the journey ticket did not take into account that the jamatalashi had not been done. Hence, it was stated that the absence of the ticket could not be treated as determinative.
The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant and to direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months. Thus, the Court directed that the matter be listed before the Tribunal on 30-04-2026 while allowing the appeal.
Appearances:
For Appellants – Mr. Navin Kumar, Mr. Pappu Singh
For Respondents – Ms. Pratima N. Lakra (CGSC), Ms. Uparita Suryadarshin
