Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, heard an appeal challenging the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The appellant had sought compensation under Section 16 of the RCT Act for the death of his son, Sintu Singh, allegedly in an untoward railway incident.

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held, “Incidentally, neither any record from the railway station or for that matter anyone deputed at the railway station, viz. any guard, or any passenger had witnessed any ‘untoward accident’. It is also a matter of the record that no railway ticket was found from the body of the deceased”. 

The appellant contended that on November 8, 2011, his son was traveling from Anand Vihar to Ara on the North East Express with a valid ticket. It was claimed that due to overcrowding near Ara Junction, the deceased accidentally fell from the moving train near Banhai Station and died on the spot. It was further submitted that the ticket got lost during the incident and that the matter had been reported to the police, leading to the registration of an unnatural death case. 

The Northern Railway, in its written statement, denied the claims. The department disputed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and contended that the death did not result from an untoward incident as defined under the RCT Act.

After examining the submissions of both parties and reviewing the trial court record, the court found no merit in the appeal. The court noted that the deceased’s body was found at 06:00 hours on November 9, 2011, at KM 619/78 on the down line near Banhai Railway Station. However, the court noted that the same train had already passed that location at 00:07 hours on the same day. Notably, the body was discovered only 20 meters from the station’s panel room and adjacent to Platform No. 2. 

Given that six other trains had passed the location in the interim, the court favoured the tribunal’s assertions regarding the body remaining unnoticed for nearly six hours.

Additionally, the court noted that no eyewitnesses, whether railway personnel or passengers, reported witnessing any fall or accident. No valid train ticket was recovered from the deceased’s body either. As such, the court agreed with the tribunal’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased had boarded Train No. 12506 or that he held a valid ticket at the time of the incident.

Accordingly, the court upheld the Tribunal’s findings and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to compensation from the Railways.

For Union: Special Public Counsel Sushil Kumar Pandey with Advocates Neha Yadav and Richa Pandeya
Case Title: Ayodhya Singh v Union (2025:DHC:2792)