Law & Justice
Delhi HC Denies Compensation to Widow Over Mismatched Train Ticket in Husband's Death Claim
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a compensation claim filed by a woman whose husband allegedly died after falling from a moving train, citing a critical discrepancy in the timing of the ticket purchase presented as evidence.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld a 2014 ruling by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had already rejected the claim brought by Sunaina Devi, widow of Shambhu Manjhi. The court concluded that Devi failed to prove her husband was a genuine passenger on the train in question.
According to Devi, Manjhi was travelling from Patna Junction to New Delhi aboard the Brahmaputra Mail on April 17, 2011. She claimed he fell from the train near Sachiwalaya Halt after a sudden jerk and jostling among passengers in an overcrowded general compartment, where he had been standing near the gate. He was reportedly taken to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), where he later succumbed to his injuries.
However, the ticket submitted as evidence showed it was purchased at 5:47 pm on April 17, 2011, while railway records indicated that Train No. 4055 had already departed Patna Junction at 1:18 pm—over four hours earlier. The court described this gap as going "to the root of the appellant's case," noting there was insufficient evidence to prove Manjhi had actually boarded the train using that ticket.
Devi had argued that the ticket was recovered from her husband and referenced in police documents, and relied on the inquest report, the FIR, and a statement from Manjhi's cousin to support her claim. She also contended that the lack of an eyewitness should not be grounds for dismissal, given that railway accident compensation laws are meant to be beneficial in nature.
Indian Railways, however, pointed to further inconsistencies, including conflicting accounts of Manjhi's date of death. While Devi stated he died on April 17, 2011, his cousin's police statement indicated the death occurred on April 18, 2011. The court also noted that no hospital admission records or a death certificate from PMCH were submitted to substantiate the claim that Manjhi was treated and died there.
Justice Ohri clarified that the absence of a recovered ticket alone would not automatically disqualify a claim, but the claimant still bears the burden of proving bona fide passenger status. In this case, the court found that the ticket presented did not correspond to the journey Manjhi allegedly undertook, undermining the claim's foundation.
"On the material available, the appellant has failed to discharge the initial burden in this regard," the court stated, adding that even if the fall were considered an "untoward incident," compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act could not be granted without proof that Manjhi was a legitimate passenger on the identified train.