20 years on, Patna High Court allows father’s compensation claim over son’s fatal train fall

“The documentary evidence…corroborated by the police papers and the evidence of AW1 (applicant witness 1, father of the deceased) clearly establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death occurred as a result of falling from a running train,” the order stated.

“Merely because the said documents were faint, the same could not have been discarded when their contents stood corroborated by the other materials available on record,” the judge added, concluding that it was an untoward incident.

The tribunal had rejected the compensation claim, but the high court found that the documents taken together supported the father’s case. It also noted that the railways had produced no evidence to dispute it.

Justice Khatim Reza took a broader view of the evidence.

Journey ends in tragedy

According to the records, Kundan bought a second-class ticket and a supplementary super-fast ticket from Dharhara to Kahalgaon and boarded the Vikramshila Express on November 9, 2005. The compartment was overcrowded, and he allegedly fell from the running train after a sudden jerk and died near Dasarathpur Railway Station.

The station master informed the Jamalpur Railway Police, which conducted an inquest and registered an unnatural death case the same day. The postmortem conducted on November 10, 2005, found that Kundan died from shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries from a hard and blunt substance. The police concluded that he accidentally fell from the running train.

The court noted that Kundan’s train ticket was recovered from his body, supporting his status as a bona fide passenger. The unmarried man is survived by his parents. Later his father, Nawal Kishor Yadav, sought Rs 4 lakh in compensation.

Why tribunal rejected claim

The tribunal rejected the claim in March 2016, mainly questioning whether the claimant had established that Kundan was travelling as a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an untoward incident.

It noted that there was no eyewitness to the incident and said the witness examined by the claimant (father) was not an eyewitness. The tribunal also pointed to discrepancies in the police records, including inconsistencies in dates. It observed that some of the FIR and inquest documents were faint or illegible and concluded that the claimant had failed to establish the case to its satisfaction.

Moving the high court, the father argued that the discrepancies were unintentional and that other records, including the postmortem report and police probe, consistently pointed to November 9, 2005 as the date of the incident. The Railways opposed the appeal, relying on the discrepancies in the police papers and ticket, and the absence of an eyewitness.

Enough evidence: Court

The high court took a broader view of the evidence, noting that a valid journey ticket had been recovered from Kundan’s body and that the police investigation had concluded that he had accidentally fallen from the moving train.

It also relied on station and police records, inquest proceedings, postmortem report, and other documents to conclude that Kundan was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred after he fell from the running train.

“The respondent-Railways neither produced any documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence to disbelieve the case of the claimant-appellant,” the court said. It also did not produce an incident report from the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), which the court considered to be a relevant document.

The judge rejected the decision to discard the FIR and inquest just because they were illegible, observing that their contents could be considered when supported by other evidence. The high court also referred to Supreme Court principles that beneficial legislation should receive a liberal interpretation.

The court thus set aside the tribunal’s March 18, 2016 order and allowed the compensation claim. It directed the tribunal to calculate the compensation amount in two ways: Rs 4 lakh with 7.5 per cent interest under the old rules, and Rs 8 lakh under the amended rules, and the higher amount will be paid to the claimant. The tribunal was directed to complete the calculation and payment at the earliest.