Ms. Sunita Devi Widow and Ors. … v. Union of India Through General Manager North Central Railway on 19 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learend AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant FAFO under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 as well as under Chapter IX of the High Court Rules has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13/10/2017 passed in Case No. OA/II/U/236/2012 by the Hon’ble Claims Tribunal Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, whereby the claim petition filed by claimants- appellants, the claim petition filed by the original claimants has been dismissed. 2 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018

The factual matrix of the case, in brief, are that the claimant, Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of late Puspraj Singh, filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal along with her minor daughter and son Anshika Singh and Prashant Singh on 10/08/2011 before the Railway Claims Tribunal Lucknow Branch with averment that on 02/05/2010 her husband, Puspraj Singh, who was posted as ward boy in Hallet Hospital, Kanpur, purchased a Second-Class General Ticket and boarded a train at Kanpur to travel to Allahabad, where his home was situated. The said Puspraj Singh fell from the running train near Bamhrauli Railway Station Allahabad, and expired due to fatal injuries sustained in the accident, he died. The petitioner filed a copy of the postmortem report to reflect his injuries suffered in the accident. The postmortem report examination was carried out by Dr. Sanjeev Yadav. The deceased was brought dead to the hospital; no luggage of the deceaesd was collected. The deceased left behind three dependents: his wife, Smt. Sunita Devi and two minor children. The deceased was a resident of House No.150, C/5A, Chak Meera Patti, Dhumanganj, District Allahabad -211011. The appellants claimed Rs.10 lakhs as death compensation from the railway administration.

4. The police investigated the accident and filed final report on 25/09/2010.

5. Learned Tribunal examined the claim of the petitioners and framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:- 3 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question?

2. Whether incident of death of the deceased fall under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989?

3. Who are the dependents of the deceased?

4. To what relief?

6. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue Noo.1, observed that it is evident from the record that not a single word has been stated by AW- 1 Ms. Sunita Devi as to what happened regarding the ticket with which the deceased was travelling.

7. In the statutory investigation report, it has been reported that either the deceased was not travelling by the train in question or he was travelling without a ticket. No evidence regarding the purchase of the valid journey ticket could be produced by the appellants.

8. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that in all cases, there cannot be a presumption that the deceased was holding the valid journey ticket unless it is establishd prima facie by cogent evidence that the deceased purchased a valid railway journey ticket and boarded the train in question.

9. The learned Tribunal cited the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Geeta versus Union of India, reported in 2014 ACJ 1505, has held that “the first burden to establish prima facie that the deceased boarded the train in question lies upon the applicant himself and if this burden is discharged then the burden shifts upon the solders of the 4 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 railway to prove, otherwise. Unless the applicant establish prima facie that the deceased started the journey with the valid ticket, the respondent railway is not under obligation lead any evidence to prove that the deceased was traveling without ticket.

10. The learned Tribunal concluded that, "We are of the considered opinion that the applicants were quite unable to establish the fact that the deceased was traveling with a valid journey ticket and this issue, therefore, is decided accordingly against the applicants.

11. With above findings the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petition.

12. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners have filed the present appeal before this court.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Annexure-2 is the report of Inspector Incharge, RPFSFG, who conducted an inquiry in regard to the accident which resulted in death of Puspraj Singh, the husband of the petitioner no.1 has stated that after inquiry, it is found that the deceased Puspraj Singh was travelling in the train either without a valid ticket or he was not traveling in the train at all. He suddenly came near the gate of the train and fell down from train negligently due to carelessness and died. It would not be justified that railway awards in claim in the matter.

14. The railway authorities place reliance on the report of S.H.O. RPF, Commercial Inspector, North Central Railway, Allahabad also conducted inquiry to place reliance on inquiry report of Inspector Incharge, RPF SFG and the and concluded that deceased was not a bona fide passenger 5 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 as he died due to his own carelessness. The claim is not liable to be accepted. It is also stated in inquiry report of Inspector, RPF that on 22/05/2010, the sSation Master, Bamrauli on duty informed GRP, Allahabad through control room Allahabad that on 22/05/2010, the driver of Train No.2488 express has informed through walki talkie that a person fell down and got cut under the wheels of the train between kilometer No. 834/14-12. Acting on this information, GRP team of Allahabad rushed to the place of occurrence and inquest on dead body was conducted and the body was sent for postmortem. During police investigation, this fact surfaced on the basis of information given by the father-in-law of the deceased, who is the resident of District Fatehpur, that Puspraj Singh was returning from performing duty at Hallet Hospital Kanpur on 22/05/2010 and fell down from some train while returning to Allahabad near Bamrauli Railway Station and died due. During search of dead body, no railway ticket or travel authority could be obtained. This implies that either he was not traveling by any train, or he was traveling, or he fell down from a moving train but did not have a valid ticket.

15. He next submitted that railway claim compensation was claimed by the petitioners under Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989. Learend Tribunal, without deciding issues Nos.2, 3, and 4, dismissed the claim petitioners on the basis of finding on issue No.1, which is contrary to law. It is the bounden duty of the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide each and every issue which have been framed on the pleadings of the parties. 6 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018

16. The deceased was traveling by Train No.2488 Express from Kanpur to Allahabad and accidentally fell at kilometer No.834/14-12 at Bamrauli railway station and sustained serious injuries resulting in his death. On the message of the Station Master, Bamrauli, GRP, Bareilly registered the FIR and conducted inquest proceedings in presence of relatives of the deceased on 22/05/2010 and post-mortem was conducted at District Hospital Allahabad on 23.05.2010. The respondents have denied in their pleadings that it was an untoward accident, but no specific plea was taken that no ticket was issued to the deceased from Kanpur to Allahabad for the journey. No ticket was issued to respondent for journey from Kanpur to Allahabad on said date. No evidence has been adduced by the railways in support of their plea that the deceased was traveling without a ticket. Despite the fact that railway documents reveal that the deceased accidentally fell from the said train and was cut after falling from the moving train at Bamrauli railway station, which is obvious from the report of the Station Master, Bamrauli. Even police investigation report also indicates that the deceased died in an untoward incident while traveling in the train at Bamrauli railway station. The DRM report filed by the railway respondent indicates that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he died due to his own fault and that the railways are not liable to pay compensation. The report of the DRM is based onstatutory investigation report filed by the RPF. The FIR in the case was registered on 22/05/2010 on the memo of Railway Station Allahabad as per the message sent by Station Master, Bamrauli, Shri Jokhulal, through the control room. This information was preceded by an 7 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 information of the driver of the train through his walkie-talkie, in which it is stated that a man fell from the train and was cut at kilometer No. 834/14-12. Thus, even on the basis of communication between railway officilas also, this fact is proved that the deceased fell from a running train, ie. Train No.2488 Express at Bamrauli railway station and died due to severe injuries sustained in the untoward accident while traveling by train.

17. He lastly submitted that the recovery of a railway ticket from the dead body is not mandatory in every case to show that the deceased was a bona fide train passenger. In the present case, from the post-mortem report it is quite obvious that the body was badly damaged in the accident and, in that case, recovery of any paper is not possible. Even his Identity Card issud by the Hallet Hospital could not be recovered.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the deceased was a sole bread earner of the family and he left behind young widow wife and two minor childre. They are legally entitled to claim compensation to sustain financial hardship suffered by them due to death of said Puspraj Singh.

19. Learend counsel for the appellants placed reliance the judgement in Doli Rani Saha versus Union of India, 2024 (3) T.A.C. 707 (S.C.), in this case also the claimants- appellants had duly filed affidavit stating fact and adverting to the report arising from investigation conducted by the respondent (Union of India), 8 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 which shows that the deceased was traveling on the train and his death was caused a fall during the course of his travel.

20. Hon’ble Court placed reliance on an earlier judgement in Union of India versus Reena Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Union of India versus Radha Yadav, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410, and Kamukayi & Others vs. Union of India, reported in 2023 SCC online SC 642, held that the appellant is entitled to compensation quantified as Rs.8 lakh. The compensation shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant by 30/09/2024, failing which, the amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.

21. In the above case, the Hon’ble Court reiterated the decision of Reena Devi (supra) wherein it is held that accordingly, he concluded that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident, with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time, on the same pattern in accident claim cases. In Doli Rani Saha (supra) Hon’ble Court observed in paragraph 13 as under:− “43. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Devi (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, 9 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below: "29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

22. In another judgment relied upon by learned counsel in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi and others versus Union of India, reported in 2012 1 A.L.D 331, wherein the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in railways claims compensation while deciding a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, cited several judgments and meticulously considered the distinction between ‘burden of proof’ and ‘onus of proof’ the Court held that the ‘burden of proof’ denotes legal burden and it never shifts. ‘Onus of proof’, on the other hand, means the evidentiary burden and it shifts. Unlike the burden of proof, there is continuous process of shifting onus of proof. The burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it 10 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 never shifts, and issue must be proved by the party who states affirmative, but not by the party, who states negative. Therefore, it is incumbent on each party to discharge the burden of proof which rests upon him.

23. As per Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, amplifies the rule of section 101 that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts affirmative of the fact in issue.

24. So, from section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the appellants, having come to the court asserting certain facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an “untoward incident” and that the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with a valid ticket.

25. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. In the present case, even in written communications with regard to the incident with railway officials, including the driver of the train, it is nowhere stated that the deceased was run over in an accident while traspassing railway track and got knocked down by speeding/ shunting train. Normally, in most cases, the victim who is a local resident run over who either unmindfulluy, walks on the track to take a shortcut, or jumps before the train to commit suicide. The 11 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 body of a run over victim gets mutilated badly due to the entire, or a part of the train passing over him. The deceased was although, a resident of Dhumanganj, Allahabad, yet this fact is not denied that he was working as a ward boy in Hallet Hospital, Kanpur and it appears that on that day he was travelling to Allahabad from Kanpur. This fact is not specifically denied by railway authorities that he was traveling from Kanpur to Allahabad. It is also not the case of any party that he was a local resident of the place of occurrence, i.e. Bamrauli railway station. Therefore, this proposition has no basis that he was run over by the train. So far as the absence of a valid ticket is concerned, as per the dicta of the Hon’ble Court in Dolly Rani (supra) and Union of India vs. Reema Devi (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that the mere absence of a ticket with the deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. The claimants have discharge their initial burden by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and then burdain will shift on the railways and issue can be decided on the facts shown are the attending circumstances. This is not the case of railway that on that day, no general ticket was issued from Kanpur railway station to any passenger for travelling to Bamrauli or Allahabad Railway station.

26. The fact that the deceased fell down from a moving train and received fatal injuries is proved by the affidavit of the appellants, as 12 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018 well as railway documents. Apart from the fact that no journey ticket could be recovered from the dead body, no evidence could be led by respondents that he was traveling without a valid ticket. In the inquest report, the author, who is Sub-Inspector, GRPF Allahabad, stated that the deceased fell from train and died on 22/5/2010 at around 5:00 p.m. He was 32 years of age. He suffered eight ante-mortem injuries, including one crushed injury over right hand and wrist; all bones were broken. Internal abdominal organs were crushed.

27. Keeping in view the number and nature and nature of injuries suffered by the victim, it is hard to believe, even if he had purchased a general ticket that the same was intact in the pocket of his wearing apparel. Therefore, only due to non-recovery of railway ticket, on facts of the case, it cannot be assumed that he was traveling without having any valid ticket.

28. In view of above foregoing discussions, judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the affidavit and documentary evidence availale on record, I am of the considered opinion that the learner Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim of the petitioners for death of the deceased, Puspraj Singh, without considering the material available on record in the right perspective and in judicious manner, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 13 FAFO No. - 228 of 2018

29. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order 13/10/2017 passed in Case No. OA/II/U/236/2012 by the Hon’ble Claims Tribunal Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, is set aside.

30. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

31. Appellants are held to be entitled to get compensation quantified as Rs. 8 lakhs, out of which five lakhs will be payable to appellant nno.1 , the wife of the deceased, and respondents no.2 and 3, the minor children of the deceased, will receive 1.5 lakhs each. The amount payable to the minor children of the deceased will be deposited by the Tribunal in FDRs initially for three years and will be renewable until they reach the age of majority. The amount payable to respondent no.1 will be paid to her through account payee cheque or through RTGS in her bank account by the respondent. The appellant no.1 shall provide all necessary information, including bank account details, to the Tribunal so that the amount of compensation may be disbursed by the respondent. Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) December 19, 2025 KR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench