Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has ruled that a mere assertion by the Indian Railways that a passenger may have committed suicide is not sufficient to deny compensation to the victim’s family, and that the burden of proving suicide lies squarely with the Railways once the family establishes that the deceased was a bona fide traveller.
Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, setting aside a Railway Claims Tribunal order that had dismissed a compensation plea, held that once claimants place on record evidence showing the victim held a valid ticket and died in an accidental fall, it is for the Railways to rebut that with credible proof, not merely a bald plea of suicide.
“Mere assertion that the deceased committed suicide is not sufficient to deny the compensation,” the High Court said.
The ruling came on an appeal filed by the parents of U Balaji, who died on May 23, 2015. His family said he had purchased a ticket from Adoni to Nagarur, boarded Train no 57427 (Raichur–Guntakal Passenger) and fell from the running train due to heavy rush, speed jolts and sudden jerks. They had sought compensation under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, which provides for no-fault liability in cases of accidental death or injury during rail travel.
The Railways contested the claim, arguing there was no proof the deceased had actually travelled on the train, and suggested the death may have been a suicide, which falls within statutory exceptions to the compensation provision. It also pointed out that the body was found beyond Nagarur, the destination on the ticket.
The court rejected both contentions.
It noted that a valid passenger ticket from Adoni to Nagarur was recovered from the body, and that the deceased’s father had consistently deposed that his son had boarded the train and fallen from it – a version that remained unchallenged in cross-examination.
Crucially, the court pointed to the inquest report prepared in the presence of railway officials, which itself recorded that the deceased, unable to alight due to passenger rush, had “slipped and accidentally fell down” after Nagarur. Forms I and II submitted by railway authorities also treated the incident as an accidental fall. There was, the court said, “no whisper” of suicide in any of the contemporaneous documents.
The court also dismissed the Railways’ reliance on a Divisional Railway Manager’s report that suggested suicide, noting it had been prepared nearly 10 months after the accident, which was well outside the timelines prescribed under the statutory framework and railway instructions, and was therefore of weak evidentiary value.
“It could not be used to defeat a claim under a beneficial legislation,” the court held.
On the argument that Balaji had travelled beyond his ticketed destination, the court held that over-travelling by itself does not strip a passenger of bonafide status.
Allowing the appeal, the court awarded the parents compensation of Rs 8 lakh, applying a Supreme Court ruling that the higher compensation of Rs 8 lakh, introduced by a 2016 amendment to the Railways Act, would apply even to accidents that occurred before the amendment, if the claim was pending adjudication.
This post was last modified on April 30, 2026 1:07 pm