Calcutta HC Sets Aside Railway Tribunal Award, Grants Rs. 8 Lakh to Family of Man Who Fell from Train

The Calcutta High Court reversed a Railway Claims Tribunal order and held that the deceased Baptu Pal was a bona fide passenger, awarding his family Rs. 8 lakh with interest under Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989.

The High Court at Calcutta, in an appeal arising from a claim for compensation under the Railways Act 1989, has set aside an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, which had dismissed the claim filed by the family of Baptu Pal. Baptu Pal died on 9 April 2019 after falling from a running train between Santragachi and Mourigram stations. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, sitting singly on the Appellate Side, held that the claimants had established that Baptu Pal was a bona fide passenger and that his death amounted to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act 1989. The appellants were awarded Rs. 8 lakh along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim.

The Incident and Proceedings Before the Tribunal

On the evening of 9 April 2019, Baptu Pal was travelling with his brother Pintu Pal and their friend Samaresh Pal from Dasnagar to Andul by train. At around 20.10 hours, he fell from the running train due to overcrowded conditions and a sudden jerk, at a point between KM 9/13 and 9/15 on the up line. He died on the spot. A UD case — UD Case No. 24/2019 dated 9 April 2019 — was registered with Sonarpur GRPS concerning his accidental death.

The family filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, registered as OA(IIu)/Kol/92/2019. The Railways filed a written statement contesting the claim. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim by a judgment and award dated 11 April 2025. The Tribunal found that the claimants could not establish that Baptu Pal was a bona fide passenger, and that the death had not been proved to be caused by a fall from the train. Accordingly, it held the death was not an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989 and declined any compensation.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants, represented by Mr. Saswata Bhattacharyya, argued before Justice Chowdhury that the evidence on record established both the deceased's presence on the train and his status as a ticketed passenger. Counsel pointed to a train ticket purchased on 9 April 2019 at 17.47 hours, and relied on the deposition of the eyewitness Pintu Pal (A.W. 2), who stated that the victim fell between Santragachi and Mourigram station.

The Railways, represented by Ms. Rituparna Modak and others, countered that Pintu Pal had stated he was at a friend's house at 7.30 p.m., and that inconsistencies in the testimony of this witness made the appellants' case doubtful. The Railways urged dismissal of the appeal.

How the Court Reasoned on Bona Fide Passenger Status

Justice Chowdhury began his analysis with an observation that in cases of railway untoward incidents, it is not always possible for a victim's family to produce a witness who directly saw the deceased fall from the train. In such cases, the family must rely on reports of the Police Authority or the Railway Authority.

The Court examined the statement of Pintu Pal in detail. Pintu Pal deposed that on 9 April 2019, he, Baptu Pal, and Samaresh Pal went to Dasnagar to visit a friend who was ill. Baptu Pal left earlier and purchased his ticket at about 17.47 hours. Pintu Pal and Samaresh Pal left subsequently, reached Dasnagar Railway Station, and boarded the same compartment as Baptu Pal. Due to the heavy rush, Pintu Pal and Samaresh Pal entered the coach together and saw Baptu Pal standing at the door of the same running train. The Court noted that no question was put in cross-examination to challenge whether Pintu Pal had seen Baptu Pal purchase his ticket, and the court itself raised no such query. The ticket purchase therefore remained undisputed.

The Court also noted that in the Section 174 CrPC report, the Police Authority had mentioned the seizure of a ticket from the deceased. The investigating officer of the police was not examined by the Railways. The Court held that where a Police Authority submits a report under Section 174 CrPC along with a seizure list and relevant documents, that report cannot be dismissed as perfunctory without examining the investigating officer. The combination of the police report reflecting ticket seizure and the oral evidence of Pintu Pal was held to establish that Baptu Pal was a bona fide passenger.

On the question of burden of proof, the Court referred to the decision in Dasari Laxmi v. Union of India, AIR 2003 AP, which in turn discussed a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling in Raj Kumari v. Union of India. That Division Bench had held that the burden of proving that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways, not on the claimants. The reasoning was grounded in the impracticality of expecting a deceased passenger's family to affirmatively prove ticket possession when a valid ticket could have been lost in the accident along with other belongings.

Justice Chowdhury adopted this approach and added a further observation: a person ordinarily does not risk travelling without a ticket given the penal consequences and the likelihood of encounter with a Travelling Ticket Examiner. When a person has died, he cannot defend himself against an allegation of ticketless travel. Accordingly, the Court held that where there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit must go in favour of the victim's family. The apparent inconsistency in Pintu Pal's timings, when the statement before the Court was read alongside his earlier statement before the Railway Protection Force, did not introduce any contradiction sufficient to render his evidence unbelievable.

Finding on Untoward Incident

Having found that the ticket evidence and eyewitness account established Baptu Pal's presence on the train as a bona fide passenger, the Court held that his death by falling from the running train constituted an “untoward incident” within Section 123(c) of the Railways Act 1989. The claimants were therefore entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Act.

Order

Justice Chowdhury allowed FMA 1152 of 2025 and set aside the judgment and award dated 11 April 2025 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in Railway Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/Kol/0093/2019.

The appellants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lakh from the respondent Union of India, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case until the date of the High Court's judgment on 19 August 2026.

The respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 8 lakh along with the accrued interest before the Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta, within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The appellants were to be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance with necessary formalities.