No Ticket, No Eyewitness, No Compensation: Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Denial of Railway Claim for Alleged Fall from Train

“A Severely Mutilated Body Found on the Tracks Can’t Be Presumed an Accidental Fall — There Must Be Proof of Travel and a Bona Fide Ticket” - In a ruling that underscores the necessity of concrete proof in untoward incident claims under the Railways Act, the Delhi High Court  upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal’s decision rejecting a compensation plea. The petitioner, father of the deceased, claimed his son died after accidentally falling from a moving train, but the Court found the entire case rested on hearsay, with no ticket, no eyewitness, and no forensic support for the theory of a fall.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma, dismissing the appeal, observed: “The position in which the dead body was found and its extensive mutilation do not support the theory of an accidental fall — it raises serious doubts that the death was due to any untoward incident as contemplated under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.”

Claim of Fall from North East Express, No Ticket Found
The petitioner claimed that on November 8, 2011, his son, Sintu Singh, boarded Train No. 12506 (North East Express) from Anand Vihar to Ara, Bihar, on a valid ticket. As the train neared Ara Junction, due to overcrowding, the deceased allegedly fell off near Banhai Station while attempting to deboard.

A report (UD No. 64/11) was registered at GRP Ara, and the father claimed the ticket was lost during the incident.
However, the Railway administration denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and contended that his death was not due to an untoward railway incident.

Tribunal Findings: Hearsay, No Eyewitness, and a Mutilated Body Between the Tracks
The Railway Claims Tribunal had earlier dismissed the claim based on the following key findings: “Except for self-serving averments, no document or testimony supports that the deceased travelled on Train No. 12506 on the relevant day.”

“The father admitted he only learned of the death after police contacted him. He was not an eyewitness, nor was his co-villager.”
“No journey ticket was recovered. The body was found badly mutilated, with both legs and arms severed, and lying in the center of the track, not beside it — contradicting a fall-from-train scenario.”

Citing the case of Dharambiri Devi v. Ministry of Railways, the Tribunal noted: “A body cut into two halves in the middle of the track is inconsistent with an accidental fall. Such injuries suggest the person was either lying on the tracks or was hit directly — not thrown from a train.”

High Court Agrees: Circumstantial Theory, No Tangible Proof
The High Court reviewed the record and fully endorsed the Tribunal's reasoning. Noting that six trains passed the location before the body was found, it held: “It is doubtful the body remained unnoticed for six hours if the fall had happened from Train No. 12506. The deceased’s position near the panel room and absence of any train staff or passenger witnessing an incident raise further doubts.”

The Court ruled: “No record, ticket, or credible witness places the deceased aboard the North East Express. In such circumstances, no liability can be fastened on the Railways.”

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that burden of proof lies squarely on the claimant to establish the death was due to an untoward incident while traveling as a bona fide passenger: “Without proof of ticket, travel, or causal link to the train, the claim becomes speculative — and the law does not permit compensation based on conjecture.”

Date of Decision: April 23, 2025