Allowed¶24

Rajan Kumar v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Jan 2026CR/932/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-932-2025 (O&M), decided 29.01.2026 by Alka Sarin, J. (Oral). Railway accident compensation claim (train No.12498, Dhandari Railway Station, incident 25.09.2023; right foot amputated; death 20.12.2023) under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Key themes: summoning and examination of treating doctors; exhibited/tendered documents must still be proved in accordance with law; cardio respiratory arrest as certified cause of death linked to injuries; revision under Article 227 of the Constitution; order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 24.01.2025 set aside; examination of doctors through hybrid mode permitted.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.01.2025 of the Tribunal set aside; application for summoning the doctors allowed; Tribunal may examine the doctors through hybrid mode.

Rajan Kumar Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 24.01.2025 of the Tribunal set aside; application for summoning the doctors allowed; Tribunal may examine the doctors through hybrid mode.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for summoning the treating doctors ought to have been allowed so as to establish that the cardio respiratory arrest stated as the cause of death resulted from the injuries received by the deceased. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Although the doctors' reports were tendered in evidence and exhibited, they were still required to be proved in accordance with law; therefore, the application for summoning the doctors for recording of their statements ought to have been allowed.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Documents tendered in evidence and exhibited are nevertheless required to be proved in accordance with law; mere exhibition without dispute does not dispense with proof.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order dated 24.01.2025 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dismissing the claimant-petitioner's application to summon two Ludhiana doctors (Dr. Ravinder Tah and Dr. Sandeep Kaur) whose reports had already been tendered in evidence, exhibited, and were undisputed by the respondent Union of India. The claim arose from a 25.09.2023 incident at Dhandari Railway Station in which the petitioner's wife, while boarding train No.12498, was injured, her right foot was amputated, and she died on 20.12.2023; compensation was sought under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Holding that documents tendered in evidence and exhibited are still required to be proved in accordance with law, and that the recorded cause of death (cardio respiratory arrest) needed to be linked to the injuries received, Alka Sarin, J. set aside the order dated 24.01.2025, allowed the application for summoning the doctors, and observed that the Tribunal may examine them through hybrid mode. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

137

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-932-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.01.2026

¶4

Rajan Kumar ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India ... Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Archana Vashisht, Advocate (Central Government Counsel), for the respondent.

¶10

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the doctors, namely, Dr. Ravinder Tah, MBBS, Ludhiana Mediways Hospital, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and Dr. Sandeep Kaur, MBBS, SPS Hospital, Sherpur Chowk, GT Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, has been dismissed.

¶12

Vide the impugned order the application has been dismissed only on the ground that though no reply has been filed by the respondent, however, the stand taken was that there was no need for summoning the doctors as their reports have already been tendered in evidence by the petitioner and exhibited and the respondent was not denying those reports.

¶13

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶14

CR-932-2025 (O&M)

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the necessity for summoning the doctors is that in the report which has been exhibited the cause of death has been stated to be cardio respiratory arrest, however, cardio respiratory arrest was due to the injuries which were received by the deceased and, hence, in order to prove the same it was necessary for the doctors to appear.

¶17

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the documents as exhibited by the petitioner have not been disputed, hence, there would be no requirement for summoning the doctors.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

In the present case the petitioner herein filed a claim petition on the ground that on 25.09.2023 the wife of the petitioner had to board a train No.12498 from Dhandari Railway Station to reach New Delhi and when she was trying to board the train, the train started moving and her foot got stuck between the platform and the train. She was rushed to the hospital, and her right foot was amputated. Due to the injuries, the wife of the petitioner expired on 20.12.2023. The application for compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was filed in respect of injuries and subsequent death of the wife of the petitioner. An application was filed by the petitioner for summoning the doctors though the reports of the doctors had been exhibited on the record. In the present case the necessity to examine the doctors arose as the cause of death was given as cardio respiratory arrest , however, it needs to be clarified that cardio respiratory arrest was caused due to the injuries and the complication of the injuries which were received by the wife of the petitioner. Though the documents have been tendered in evidence and exhibited, however, the same would be required to be proved in

¶20

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶21

¶22

CR-932-2025 (O&M)

¶23

accordance with law, therefore, the application for summoning the doctors for recording of their statements ought to have been allowed.

¶24

In view of the above, the order dated 24.01.2025 is set aside. The application for summoning the doctors is accordingly allowed. Needless to say that the Tribunal may examine the doctors through hybrid mode.

¶25

Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶26

29.01.2026 Yogesh Sharma

¶27

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶28

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶29

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

Rajan Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munni and Ors. Vs Veer Singh and Ors.

Alahudin Chaudhary Vs Canara Bank

Matadeen and Ors. Vs Singh Ram Deceased through His Lrs and Ors.

Balbir Singh (Deceased) through His Lr Rohtash Vs M/S. Vikram Electric Equipment (Pvt.) Limited and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs Maharshi Dayanand University and Ors.

Rajwant Kaur and Anr. Vs Manjeet Kaur