Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Shankar Lal And Ors vs U O I And Ors on 23 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:4474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1076/2008
Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Kisanlal, age 52 years R/o Adalat Road Guru
Dware Ke Pass Chowmahala, Thana Gangshar, District Jhalawar
----Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India through Western Central Railway Jabalpur
2. Smt. Jatan Bai W/o Shankar Lal age 48 yrs. R/o Adalat
Road Guru Dware ke Pass, Cowmaala, Thana Gangdhar,
District Jhalawar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek, Adv. with
Mr. Manish Acharya, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 30.01.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 30.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative
Full
part is pronounced
4. Date of pronouncement 23.02.2026
1. The appellant-Shankar Lal S/o Kishanlal has filed the present
appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1987’ for short)
challenging the judgment/award dated 20.09.2007 passed by the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter
referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’ for short) in Claim Petition No.
O.A. No.II/17/2004 titled as Sh. Shankar Lal and Anr. Vs. Union of
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (2 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
India, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is the father of
the deceased Mohan Lal, who died in a railway accident that
occurred on 16.06.2003, while he was traveling from Chowmahala
to Kota in Train No.2955 (Dn. Mumbai Central – Jaipur Super Fast
Exp.). Learned counsel submitted that the deceased had a valid
second class passenger ticket and due to jerk and heavy rush in
the compartment, he fell down from the train and died on the said
unfortunate day i.e. 16.06.2003. The appellant thereafter filed a
claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was registered as
O.A. No.II/17/2004. He further submitted that the deceased was
the unmarried son of the appellant and that the appellant was
informed about the mishap by one Brij Mohan Punjabi, a resident
of the same area and well known to their family, and that the body
was therefore identified.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that for the said incident
a MERG Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. bearing No.6/2003 dated
16.06.2003 was registered by the Police. He further submitted
that on perusal of the postmortem report, it is evident that the
deceased suffered serious injuries all over the body, including the
head. The postmortem report further disclosed that the deceased
died as a result of falling from the train, therefore, there is no
dispute that the deceased died during his journey by train on the
unfortunate day. However, the claim was not properly examined
and entertained and was wrongly rejected by the learned Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that in Exhibit A/5 i.e.
Final Report prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., it was specifically
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (3 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
recorded that the deceased died due to falling from the running
train, however, the accident was not noticed by any passenger,
and therefore, the complete incident, though, went unnoticed
immediately, however, later on somebody informed the
Chowmahala Station Master that a dead body was lying under the
railway bridge, who then informed the police. Thereafter the body
was picked up by the police around 10:30 a.m. and the
postmortem was conducted at around 12:40 p.m. on 16.06.2003
itself.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that despite sufficient
evidence on record, the learned Tribunal wrongly rejected the
claim petition by passing impugned order dated 20.09.2007. He,
therefore, prayed that the police investigation itself contains
specific fact that the deceased died due to falling from the running
train and the complete belongings were found missing, therefore,
the appellant deserves to be granted compensation as claimed in
the claim petition and the present appeal deserves to be allowed
by quashing the impugned order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Of
India, Mr. Pawan Pareek vehemently opposed the arguments and
submitted that the learned Tribunal minutely examined the place
and time of the incident and further no valid ticket was recovered
from the possession of the deceased, therefore, it could not be
proved by any means that the deceased was a bona-fide
passenger and was having a valid ticket. He further submitted that
there is no clear and specific evidence to prove that the deceased
died in the rail accident during the journey, and therefore, the
appellant was rightly held not entitled to compensation.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (4 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway further
submitted that there is a serious dispute in the timings of the
alleged incident. According to learned counsel, the body was first
recovered, and thereafter, the alleged train arrived at the station
and departed after taking passengers from the station and there is
no connection between this sequence of events and the story of
incident as recited by the appellant. In view thereof, he prayed
that the present appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be
dismissed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal deserves
to be affirmed by this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. This Court after going through the record of the learned
Tribunal noted that the instant claim petition was filed by the
appellant before the learned Tribunal by stating that his unmarried
son, Mohan Lal, died in a railway accident for which he is entitled
to compensation of Rs.8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs) with
interest @ 12% per annum. The learned Tribunal, while examining
the claim, framed four issues, which reads as under:
“1. Whether on 16/06/2003, deceased Shri.
Mohan Lal was travelling from Choumala to Kota
on valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide
passenger of the said train?
2. Whether the deceased accidentally fell down
from the said train near the Choumala railway
station, sustained grievous injuries and died on the
spot as a result of this untoward incident within
the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways
Act, 1989?
3. Whether the applicants are the sole
dependants of the deceased and are entitled to(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (5 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]compensation as claimed under Para 16 of the
claim petitioner?
4. Any other relief?”
10. The first issue was in respect of presence of a valid journey
ticket, which was required to be proved by the appellant, so as to
prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The second
issue was as to whether the deceased accidentally fell down on
the said day from the train, sustained grievous injuries and died
on the spot. As far as the Issue No.1 is concerned, the case of the
respondent-Railway, as orally submitted, is that the deceased
committed suicide and was not travelling by train, as they have
questioned the claim on the ground that the deceased was not
carrying a valid journey ticket.
11. This Court has considered the issue with regard to absence
of a valid ticket in terms of various judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No. 823/2010 (Sanjay Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and
Ors.) vide judgment dated 16.01.2026, wherein this Court
considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases of Jameela vs. Union of India1, Union of India Vs. Rina
Devi2, Kamukayi and Ors. Vs. Union of India3, Doli Rani
Saha Vs. Union of India4 and Shri Ramesh Kumar and Anr.
Vs. Union of India5, where consistently the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that just because the ticket was not recovered
during the recovery, compensation cannot be denied. The
1 (2010) 12 SCC 443
2 2019(3) SCC 572
3 (2023) 19 SCC 116
4 (2024) 9 SCC 656
5 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1215/2022 decided on 06.12.2025
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (6 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
relevant Paras of the judgment of Sanjay Kumar (supra) are
reproduced here as under:-
“8. Learned counsel further relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Jameela Vs. Union of India 6. Relevant
paras of the judgment are quoted hereunder:-
“7. It is not denied by the Railway that
M. Hafeez fell down from the train and
died while travelling on it on a valid
ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a
“passenger” for the purpose of section
124A as clarified by the Explanation. It
is now to be seen, that under section
124A the liability to pay compensation is
regardless of any wrongful act, neglect
or default on the part of the railway
administration. But the proviso to the
section says that the railway
administration would have no liability to
pay any compensation in case death of
the passenger or injury to him was
caused due to any of the reasons
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).
8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is
not the case of the Railway that the
death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide
or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is
also not the case that he died due to his
own criminal act or he was in a state of
intoxication or he was insane, or he died
due to any natural cause or disease. His
falling down from the train was, thus,
clearly accidental.
6. (2010) 12 SCC 443
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (7 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
9. The manner in which the accident is
sought to be reconstructed by the
Railway, the deceased was standing at
the open door of the train compartment
from where he fell down, is called by the
railway itself as negligence. Now
negligence of this kind which is not very
uncommon on Indian trains is not the
same thing as a criminal act mentioned
in clause (c) to the proviso to section
124 A. A criminal act envisaged under
clause (c) must have an element of
malicious intent or mens rea. 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.
Thus, the case of the railway must fail
even after assuming everything in its
favour.
10. We are, therefore, constrained to
interfere in the matter. The judgment
and order of the High Court coming
under appeal is set aside and the
judgment and order of the Tribunal is
restored. Since a period of more than 10
years has already elapsed from the date
of the judgment of the Tribunal, the
compensation money along with interest
need not be kept in fixed deposits, but
should be paid to the appellants in the
ratio fixed by the Tribunal. The payment
must be made within 2 months from
today.
9. In support of this argument, learned counsel
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rina
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (8 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
Devi7, wherein the Apex Court has held that the
death or injury in the course of boarding or de-
boarding of a train will be an ‘untoward incident’,
which entitles the victim for compensation.
Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced
below:-
“Re: (ii) Application of Principle of
Strict Liability Concept of Self-
Inflicted Injury
20. From the judgments cited at the Bar
we do not see any conflict on the
applicability of the principle of strict
liability. Sections 124 and Section 124A
provide that compensation is payable
whether or not there has been wrongful
act, neglect or fault on the part of the
railway administration in the case of an
accident or in the case of an ‘untoward
incident’. Only exceptions are those
provided under proviso to Section 124A.
In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) it
was held that Section 124A lays down
strict liability or no fault liability in case
of railway accidents. Where principle
of strict liability applies, proof of
negligence is not required. This
principle has been reiterated in
Jameela (supra).
21. Coming to the proviso to Section
124A to the effect that no compensation
is payable if passenger dies or suffers
injury due to the situations mentioned
therein, there is no difficulty as regards
suicide or attempted suicide in which
7. 2019(3) SCC 572
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (9 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]case no compensation may be payable.
Conflict of opinions in High Courts has
arisen on understanding the expression
‘self inflicted injury’ in the proviso. In
some decisions it has been held that
injury or death because of negligence of
the victim was at par with self inflicted
injury. We may refer to the decisions of
High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT
(supra), Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and
Delhi in Shayam Narayan (supra) on
this point.
[…]
25. We are unable to uphold the above
view as the concept of ‘self inflicted
injury’ would require intention to inflict
such injury and not mere negligence of
any particular degree. Doing so would
amount to invoking the principle of
contributory negligence which cannot be
done in the case of liability based on ‘no
fault theory’. We may in this connection
refer to judgment of this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil
Kumar34 laying down that plea of
negligence of the victim cannot be
allowed in claim based on ‘no fault
theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we
hold that death or injury in the
course of boarding or de-boarding a
train will be an ‘untoward incident’
entitling a victim to the
compensation and will not fall
under the proviso to Section 124A
merely on the plea of negligence of
the victim as a contributing factor.
[…]
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (10 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
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.”
10. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that mere absence of a ticket with the
injured or deceased will not negate the claim that
the deceased was a bona-fied passenger.
11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kamukayi & Ors. Vs Union of India8, wherein the
similar controversy was examined by the Hon’ble
Apex Court and it was held that just because
during recovery ticket was not found, the
compensation cannot be denied. Relevant para
of the judgment is quoted hereunder:-
“18. […] Considering the material
brought on record, in our view, the
initial burden that the deceased
passenger was having a valid ticket has8 (2023) 19 SCC 116
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (11 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]been discharged shifting onus on the
Railway Administration to disprove the
said fact. Nothing has been placed
before Claims Tribunal or brought on
record during the course of hearing that
the Railway Administration has
discharged the burden of not having the
valid railway ticket with the deceased
passenger, except to say that during
recovery ticket was not found. In
absence of any cogent evidence,
notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law, the Railway
Administration shall be liable to pay
compensation as prescribed.”
12. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India 9, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court considered the judgment passed
in the case of Rina Devi (supra) and held that mere
absence of ticket with the injured or deceased
cannot negate the claim that the deceased was a
bona-fide passenger. Relevant paras of the
judgment are quoted below:-
“13. 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
9 (2024) 9 SCC 656.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (12 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
could be discharged by filing an affidavit
of the relevant facts. Once the claimant
did so, 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.
14. In the present case, the appellant
had duly filed an affidavit stating the
facts and adverting to the report arising
from the investigation conducted by the
respondent, which showed that the(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (13 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]deceased was travelling on the train and
that his death was caused by a fall
during the course of his travel. The
burden of proof then shifted to the
Railways, which has not discharged its
burden. Therefore, the presumption that
the deceased was a bona-fide passenger
on the train in question was not
rebutted.”
13. Apart from above, learned counsel also relied
upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ramesh
Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India10, wherein
the facts were almost similar, as the ticket was not
found on the body of the deceased and the Court,
after considering the legislative intent of the
Sections 123(c)(2) & 124A of the Act of 1989, held
that mere non recovery of a travel ticket specifically
in the cases where deceased body was found in a
crushed condition cannot be a ground to deny the
compensation and accordingly the claimants were
held entitled for compensation.”
12. Therefore, in view of the above judgment, this Court, in the
present case, has reached to the conclusion that the learned
Tribunal has erroneously decided issue No.1 against the appellant
and the findings as recorded, being perverse, are hereby quashed
and set aside. As far as the findings recorded on issue No.2 is
concerned, this Court considered the Final Report submitted by
the Police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. wherein, it was recorded,
after detailed investigation it was recorded, that the deceased died
due to falling from the running train on 16.06.2003. Once this fact
was recorded by police on the basis of their investigation and no
10 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1215/2022 decided on 06.12.2025
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (14 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
contrary fact or evidence was produced by the respondent-Railway
to counter these facts as recorded by the police in its Report,
therefore, the objection raised by the respondent-Railway is not
convincing and is rather clearly baseless.
13. This Court has also considered the impugned order dated
20.09.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal and noted that, while
jointly deciding the issue No.1 and 2, as quoted above, the
learned Tribunal recorded the submissions of the learned counsel
for the respondent-Railway that the alleged incident took place
before 06:20 a.m. on 16.06.2003, whereas the said train arrived
at the station at 06:31 a.m. and departed at 06:33 a.m., and
much before it, Deputy Superintendent of Railway Station,
Chowmahala gave information to the S.H.O. Gangdhar at about
06:20 a.m. about an unknown dead body lying below the railway
bridge. It is on the basis of this submission, the learned Tribunal
considered the evidence of the material witness, including the
Railway Guard Tejpal and believed the version of the respondent-
Railway and concluded, while deciding issue Nos.1 and 2, that the
deceased was not carrying a valid railway ticket and he had died
much before the train arrived at the station, and therefore, the
claim petition was held to be not entertainable.
14. While examining the above findings recorded by the learned
Tribunal, this Court considered the final conclusion recorded by the
police in its report filed under Section 174 Cr.P.C., wherein it was
specifically mentioned that the deceased died due to falling from a
running train. Further, Deputy Station Superintendent, noted that
while leaving the duty at about 02:30 p.m. made an entry in the
official record of the station reflecting that at around 06:20 a.m.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (15 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
he was informed that the dead body of a person was lying in the
Kali Sindh River. It was on the basis of the said entry made by the
Deputy Station Superintendent, Arvind Kumar Sharma mentioned
that he informed the police about the dead body at around 06:20
a.m. and that the train arrived much later, this version was
erroneously accepted by the learned Tribunal.
15. This Court while examining the fact about the above
mentioned timings as recorded by the Dy. Station Superintendent,
Arvind Kumar Sharma in Annexure R/3, noted that the said entry
was recorded by him while leaving his duty at 02:30 p.m.
on 16.06.2003. There is no document on record, which may
show that Arvind Kumar Sharma had informed the police
about the body at around 06:20 a.m.. In this regard, there
is no such mention even in the police record to show that
the said information was given to the police by Dy. Station
Superintendent at 06:20 a.m.. In absence of above, the
version of the respondent-Railway based on evidence of
Deputy Station Superintendent cannot be accepted as true.
16. This Court fails to find any justified reason which made the
learned Tribunal to believe the version of the respondent-Railway
that the incident occurred before 06:20 a.m., i.e. much before the
arrival of train. The respondent-Railway has failed to counter the
findings as recorded by the police in the report prepared under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incident dated 16.06.2003.
Therefore, on the basis of the Police Report, there is no reason to
doubt the version of the claimant that the deceased died on
16.06.2003 on account of the unfortunate incident when he was
traveling from Chowmahala to Kota.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4474] (16 of 16) [CMA-1076/2008]
17. In view of the above discussions, the findings as recorded by
the learned Tribunal, while deciding the issue Nos.1 and 2, are
found to be perverse and the same are hereby quashed and set
aside. Issue Nos.1 & 2 are decided in favour of the appellant.
Issue No.3 is also decided in favour of the appellant, he being the
father of the deceased, who was his unmarried son. The appellant
is held entitled to the compensation as claimed before the learned
Tribunal also in terms of the law settled, as discussed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The claim petition filed before the learned
Tribunal is allowed and the appellant is held entitled to
compensation of Rs.8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakh) with interest @
9 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the
date of realisation. The amount of compensation be deposited by
the respondent-Railway within a period of eight weeks before the
learned Tribunal. On deposition of the claim amount, learned
Tribunal shall disburse the same in terms of the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2020.
18. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
19. No order as to costs.
20. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed off.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J
Dushyant
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
