The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that finding a passenger’s dead body 10 meters away from a railway track cannot be used as a conclusive basis to presume that they did not fall from a running train. Deciding on the appeal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi set aside a 2023 order by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Ranchi, which had previously dismissed a compensation claim filed by the family of a deceased passenger. The High Court directed the Eastern Railway to pay Rs 8,00,000 in compensation along with 7% annual interest to the dependants, emphasizing the strict and no-fault liability standard governing railway accidents.
Background of the Case
The matter originates from an incident on August 1, 2017. The deceased, Ashok Mehto (also referred to as Mahto), purchased a valid second-class travel ticket (bearing number 93414480) for travel from Jamui to Madhupur railway station and boarded the 18184 Dn Danapur-Tatanagar Express train. After informing his wife that he was on his way home, he failed to return.
His family began searching for him and heard reports that an individual had accidentally fallen from a train near the Nawapatri cabin. Upon arriving at the site, they identified the body of the deceased. Following a written information statement by the deceased’s brother, Chotu Mahto, the Madhupur Government Railway Police Station (GRPS) registered Unnatural Death (U.D.) Case No. 39 of 2017 on August 2, 2017.
The railway police investigated the occurrence, prepared an inquest report, and submitted a final report on August 2, 2017, confirming that the deceased died as a result of falling from the train. A valid ticket from Jamui to Madhupur was recovered from his body, which was recorded by the police in both the inquest and final reports.
The deceased’s wife, Smt Raj Kumari Devi, along with her four daughters, filed a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking Rs 8 lakh in compensation. However, on April 26, 2023, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, dismissed their claim, holding that the incident did not fall under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Tribunal’s rejection was based on findings that no eyewitnesses saw the fall, the dead body was found 10 meters away from the railway track, and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Arguments of the Parties
Appealing the Tribunal’s decision, counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha and Ms. Chainika, argued that the Tribunal erroneously interpreted the facts. They submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger whose travel ticket was recovered from his person and verified by the railway police. They argued that the accident fell squarely under the definition of an “untoward incident” and urged that the provisions for compensation in the Railways Act should be interpreted as beneficial legislation.
Opposing the appeal, Mrs. Niki Sinha, Central Government Counsel (CGC) representing the Eastern Railway, argued that the Tribunal’s dismissal was justified. The respondent pointed out that while the ticket was dated August 1, 2017, the body was recovered on August 2, 2017. The respondent also asserted that there were no eyewitnesses to the purchase of the ticket or the fall, and therefore, the claimants had failed to establish their case.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that the occurrence of the accident was admitted. On the issue of passenger status, the court noted that travel ticket number 93414480 was recovered from the deceased’s possession and recorded in both the inquest and inquiry reports, proving he was a bona fide passenger.
Addressing the respondent’s objection regarding the lack of eyewitnesses for the ticket purchase, the court rejected the argument, noting that it is not realistic to expect eyewitnesses for every ticket transaction as passenger travel is a common daily activity.
On the physical location of the body, the High Court determined that finding a body 10 meters away from the track does not negate a fall from a running train. The court cited the Delhi High Court judgment in Anita Devi & Ors. Versus Union of India (FAO No. 169 of 2022), which noted:
“No mileage can be taken by the respondent/Railways from the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found on Dn line track at KM 15/9-16/0. That alone would not invite a conclusive presumption that the deceased did not fall out of a running train.”
Expanding on this, the High Court observed:
“only because the body was found 10 meters away from the railway track, exemption cannot be drawn that the accident has not been taken place due to not falling out from the train and onus lies upon the Railway to prove that the accident has not taken place due to falling from the train.”
The court analyzed Section 124-A of the Act, which outlines liability for untoward incidents. The court observed that the deceased’s case did not fall under any of the restrictive exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural causes) listed in the proviso. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527, noting that:
“since the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one.”
Responding to the issue of passenger negligence, such as standing near an open door, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jameela Versus Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443, which clarified that negligence does not equate to a “criminal act” under the statutory exceptions:
“Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment was not in accordance with the law and set it aside. The court declared that the appellants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs 8,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, calculated from the date of the accident (August 1, 2017) until actual payment.
The Eastern Railway was directed to make the payment to the appellants within two months from receiving or being produced a copy of the court’s order. The High Court subsequently allowed the appeal and directed the Trial Court Records to be sent back immediately.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt Raj Kumari Devi & Ors. v. Union of India
Case No.: M.A. No. 182 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Date: 09.07.2026
