Ayyub & Anr v. Union of India

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellants seek to assail the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Case No. OA (IIu) No. 96/2023, whereby the claim application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, namely Mohd. Manshad(hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was dismissed.

2. The claim application was filed in the context of a train journey undertaken by the deceased from Muzaffarnagar to Delhi Railway Station on 02.08.2022 by Yoga Express (Train No. 1903[2]). It was claimed that when the said train was passing between Ghaziabad and Sahibabad railway stations, the deceased, on account of heavy rush and push and pull among passengers, fell from the train and suffered serious injuries. He was thereafter taken to the hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’.

3. The claimants had examined the father and brother of the deceased as AW-1 and AW-2 respectively.

4. The respondent contested the claim application and filed the DRM report. According to the respondent, the body of the deceased was found between Sahibabad and Ghaziabad Station railway stations. The first information about the incident is recorded vide Station Master Memo, Sahibabad dated 03.08. at about 01:00 hours, wherein it was reported that the Guard of Train No.

5. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim application as no journey ticket was recovered from the body of deceased and rather a platform ticket was shown to have been recovered. Further, the Tribunal also took note of the naksha moka (site plan), according to which the body of the deceased was found near Line No. 1, whereas the concerned train i.e., Yoga Express, had passed through Line No. 4.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment, contends that though no journey ticket was recovered, the deposition of AW-2 is categorical to the effect that the deceased had undertaken the journey after purchasing a valid journey ticket. It is further contended that the body of the deceased was found on the railway track between Sahibabad and Ghaziabad, which comes in the course of journey from Muzaffarnagar to Delhi Railway Station, and therefore the fact that the body was found near the railway track points towards the incident having occurred in the course of a train journey, and thus an ‘untoward incident’.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks dismissal of the appeal and reiterates that since only a platform ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, and since the body was found at some distance from the railway line through which the Yoga Express had passed, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application.

8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the evidence that has come on record, would reflect that, in the claim application, it was categorically stated that the deceased had undertaken the journey by Yoga Express on 02.08.2022. Though the journey ticket was not recovered, the same by itself would not defeat the claim. (Ref: Union of India v. Rina Devi[1] ).

10. The deposition of Mohd. Amzad (AW-2), the brother of the deceased, is to the effect that he had accompanied the deceased to the railway station and was a witness not only to the purchase of the ticket but also to the boarding of the aforesaid train. This deposition was disbelieved by the Tribunal primarily on the ground that while the father of the deceased stated that the motorcycle belonged to them, the brother of the deceased stated that it belonged to a neighbour.

11. The Tribunal’s reliance on the recovery of the platform ticket from the person of the deceased while dismissing the claim application is also flawed. In this regard, it is noted that the respondent had examined two witnesses, namely Javed Khan and Ravi Kumar, both constables in RPF. Both of them have stated that they did not conduct the search operations and the same was conducted by the local police, in which platform ticket was recovered. The Tribunal had summoned and examined HC Vipin Chaudhary (CW-3), who, though claimed that he was present at the spot, that he had conducted the search and had recovered a slip from his pocket. However, he stated that he could not say whether any platform ticket was found amongst the recovered articles. The learned counsel for the appellants doubted the recovery of any platform ticket itself. Even otherwise, the verification report of the said platform ticket, as stated so in the DRM report, would show that the said platform ticket was stated to have been issued on 02.08.2022 at Ghaziabad Railway Station at 17:36 hours. As per the Train Signal Record (‘TSR’), the Yoga Express has arrived at Ghaziabad Railway Station at 20:56 hours and left at 20:58 hours. The aforesaid would show that while the deceased had already suffered an accidental fall before the train could reach Ghaziabad, the platform ticket issued at 17:36 hours on the said date at Ghaziabad i.e. about 3 hours and 30 minutes earlier, is unexplained and does not match with the train schedule time of the Yoga Express. I also find strength in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the said ticket is not claimed to have been issued at the originating railway station at Muzaffarnagar so as to advance any contention that the deceased had undertaken an unauthorized journey.

12. Lastly, the Tribunal’s reliance on naksa moka to observe that the body was discovered at some distance from the track through which Yoga Express had passed is also found to be lacking any evidentiary support. It is observed that neither any documentary evidence nor any witness has spoken as to at which track Yoga Express had passed. Learned counsel for the respondent has also not been able to point out any document which would support the said finding.

13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion of declaring the travel being not bonafide and the accident not being an ‘untoward incident’. Concededly, it is not the respondent’s case that the appellants’ case fall in any of the statutory exceptions. At this stage, it is apposite to note that once an ‘untoward incident’ is established, the liability of railways under Section 124-A is strict in nature, unless the case falls within the statutory exceptions (Ref: Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar[2] )

14. As a result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 29.05.2026.

15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.