Jagdish Prasad and Others vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central, Railway, Allahabad

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 155 of 2026

¶3

Jagdish Prasad And Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Thru. General Manager, North Central, Railway, Allahabad .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manish Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Prakash Singh, Saroj Kumari Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 20

¶8

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

¶10

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench [as Circuit Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (parent Bench of this case)] through Hybrid Mode (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Case No.OA(II-u)/LKO/115/2020, whereby claim of the appellants has been dismissed.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.2015, Pradeep Kumar (deceased), while travelling with a second class train ticket from Kanpur Central to Anand Vihar, fell down accidentally from a train at Firozabad Railway Station and died due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. The journey ticket is stated to have been lost. Along with the claim petition, the appellants filed the evidence of A.W.-1, who is the father of the deceased, and A.W.-2, a relative of the deceased, in whose presence the ticket was said to have been purchased by the deceased. The respondent filed a written statement in the claim petition, specifically stating that the deceased was hit by a moving train. It was further contended that he was not a bona fide passenger and did not possess a valid ticket.

¶12

On the basis of pleading set up by the parties, the Tribunal framed

FAFO No. 155 of 2026

2

following issues:

"1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question?

¶17

2) Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined U/S. 123(c)(2) read with Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

¶18

3) Whether applicants are the only dependants of the deceased?

¶19

4) To what relief?"

¶20

The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of A.W.-1 (father of the deceased) and A.W.-2, who stated that he had seen the deceased purchasing the ticket, and upon perusal of the D.R.M. report, the inquiry report of the R.P.F., the post-mortem report, and the inquest report, came to the conclusion that the deceased was hit by a moving train and was not a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2025.

¶21

This order has been assailed by the appellants/claimants by means of the instant appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions between the D.R.M. report and the Station Master’s memo. In the Station Master’s memo, the number of the train is mentioned, whereas in the D.R.M. report, it is stated that the deceased was hit by some upcoming train.

¶23

He further submits that no memo was issued by the Loco Pilot of the train and the inquest report was not proved, and the same was contrary to the evidence adduced by the A.W.-1 and A.W.-2. He also submits that the evidence of A.W.-1 was discarded, though there was no contradiction in his testimony.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶25

Apparently, on 14.08.2015, Pradeep Kumar met with an accident by a train, wherein he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

¶26

FAFO No. 155 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

injuries. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had fallen down from the train and because of accident, he succumbed to the injuries. An effort was made by A.W.-1, who is the father of the deceased and A.W.-2, who is relative of the deceased, to make out a case that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The inquest was conducted and at the time of inquest, the body was treated as unknown. The inquest report shows that the deceased died after being dashed by a train. The postmortem report indicates the ante mortem injuries, clearly shows that the deceased had badly crushed injury over the scalp, brain matter was absent, crushed injury over the chest and abdomen, upper & lower limb separated out and viscera was coming out of the body. Due to the head-on impact with the train, the body was found in pieces on the pit line. The D.R.M. report clearly shows that the deceased was dashed by some train, however, in the Station Master's memo, the train number was mentioned.

¶29

There was no ticket found with the deceased. Even if the benefit of doubt is given that the ticket might have been lost, the post-mortem report clearly indicates that the nature of the extensively mutilated injuries could not have been caused merely by falling from a train. It is a clear case that the deceased was dashed by a running train. An effort has been made by A.W.-1 and A.W.-2 to prove the case, but they are relative and father of the deceased. Their evidence can only be considered, if the same is corroborated by the documentary evidence. However, in this case, inquest report, postmortem report as well as D.R.M. report are completely contrary to the evidence led by the A.W.-1 and A.W.-2. Hence their evidence cannot be said to be reliable and at best, appears to be afterthought.

¶30

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sachin Dahiya & anr. Vs. UOI, FAO 56/2015 , decided on 14.05.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the said case vide findings in para 6 of the judgment, holding that:

¶31

"....... The findings by the learned RCT that the dead body was found in the middle of the down line track and the nature of the injuries were such that would rather go to suggest that the deceased was hit by some train, when he was attempting to

¶32

FAFO No. 155 of 2026

¶33

4

¶34

cross over the railway tracks cannot be said to be flawed in any manner."

¶35

13. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1980 states as under:

¶36

" Compensation on account of untoward incident When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

¶37

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-

¶38

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him,

¶39

(b) self-inflicted injury:

¶40

(c) his own criminal act,

¶41

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

¶42

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

¶43

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes

¶44

(1) a railway servant on duty, and

¶45

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."

¶46

Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act defines an untoward incident as

FAFO No. 155 of 2026

5

follows:

" (c) Untoward incident means-

¶51

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section

¶52

(1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

¶53

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity, or

¶54

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station, or

¶55

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."

¶56

In this case, the postmortem report clearly shows that the injuries were not because of falling of the train, but were because of the straight impact from an upcoming train. Apparently this case would fall under the category of proviso of Section 124A of the Railways Act, it can be said to be a case of self inflicted injuries. Hence, it cannot be said that the deceased was bona fide passenger as per Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act.

¶57

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgement and order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Case No.OA(II-u)/LKO/115/2020.

¶58

The instant appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶59

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶60

February 17, 2026

¶61

Anupam S/-

¶62

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagdish Prasad and Others v. Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central, Railway, Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad and Others v. Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central, Railway, Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Barabanki and 3 Others

Smt. Gujrati Devi and 2 Others vs Ram Sahay and Others

Arun Goel vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Gautam Buddh Nagar Thru. Auth. Representative

Leela Devi vs Smt. Sunita Devi

Smt. Nilam and Anr. vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Sitapur Thru. G.M. and Anr.

Smt. Nidhi Vishwakarma and Anr. vs Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma