Railway Claims Tribunal Cannot Deny Compensation Citing Inconsistent Testimony On Distance & Timing Of Accident: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the dismissal of a claim petition by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no untoward incident had been established.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed: “Minor inconsistencies relating to distance or timing, especially when the testimony is recorded years after the incident, cannot be elevated to the level of discrediting the entire version of the witness”.

In the opinion of this Court, the Bench added, “such reasoning is legally unsustainable, as it itself is not a ground to discard testimony, particularly when the core of the statement, namely the purchase of a ticket and commencement of journey, remains consistent”.

Advocates Kshitiz Jain, Rohan Chandra and Ananya Mago appeared for the appellants, while Vinay Yadav, CGSC, along with Vipul Kumar, Government Pleader, appeared for the respondent.

Background

The case arose from an incident dated 16.08.2019, where the deceased was stated to have accidentally fallen from a moving train while returning from Aligarh to Dibai, resulting in fatal injuries.

The claimants approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation, contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim, holding that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the circumstances of the incident were not conclusively established.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants preferred the present appeal before the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the findings of the Tribunal in light of the material on record and found that the conclusions drawn were not supported by contemporaneous evidence.

On the question of occurrence, the Court noted that the inquest proceedings and GRP records consistently indicated that the deceased was found near the railway track with injuries consistent with a railway accident, and there was no material to suggest that he had been run over while crossing the tracks.

The Court also found fault with reliance placed on a DRM report prepared nearly five years after the incident, observing that such a belated inquiry, lacking any eyewitness basis, could not be accorded due evidentiary value.

In this regard, the Court observed that “such a belated inquiry… lacks contemporaneous basis and cannot be accorded due evidentiary value.”

Addressing the Tribunal’s reasoning regarding the delay in the discovery of the body, the Court held that the mere fact that the body was noticed after some time during night hours cannot negate the possibility of an accidental fall.

On the issue of bona fide travel, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive. Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), the Court held that once the claimant discharges the initial burden through affidavit and surrounding circumstances, the onus shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim.

The Court noted that the testimony of the witness, who deposed that he had accompanied the deceased and facilitated the purchase of the journey ticket, had been discarded by the Tribunal on trivial discrepancies.

“Once the appellants had discharged the initial burden, the onus shifted upon the respondent to establish that the deceased was not a passenger or that the case fell within any of the statutory exceptions, … the respondent has failed to discharge this burden, … The DRM report does not provide any cogent alternative explanation and merely records an ‘unknown sequence of events’, … the statement of the loco pilot only indicates absence of reporting and does not negate the possibility of an accidental fall”, the Bench added.

The Court further found corroboration in surrounding circumstances, including the fact that the deceased had travelled to visit his sister on Raksha Bandhan, and that a Rakhi was found on his person during post-mortem proceedings.

The Court emphasised that proceedings under the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and are intended to provide prompt relief, and therefore cannot be decided on hyper-technical considerations. It reiterated that under Section 124-A of the Act, once an “untoward incident” is established, the liability of the Railways is strict unless statutory exceptions are proved.

“This Court is of the view that the Tribunal, in the present case, adopted an unduly rigid standard of proof, overlooking the beneficial object of the Act as well as the settled principle that proceedings, thereunder, are intended to provide prompt and efficacious relief to the victims of railway accidents, and has, therefore, erred in rejecting the claim by adopting a hyper-technical approach and by placing undue reliance on conjectural material while ignoring the surrounding circumstances and settled legal principles”, the Bench concluded.

Conclusion

The Court held that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claim by adopting a hyper-technical approach and by disregarding material evidence and settled legal principles.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for the determination of compensation, with directions to disburse the same within a stipulated period.

Cause Title: Smt. Raj Kumari & Ors. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3569)

Click here to read/download Judgment