Rani Devi vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25.09.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : 30.10.2026

# CNR No.DLHC010591372025

+ FAO 230/2025

RANI DEVI .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, SPC with
Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, GP

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated
30.06.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/DLI/613/2024, whereby the claim application filed by
the appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a railway
accident came to be dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on
14.03.2024, she, along with her brother-in-law, Sushil , and other
Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

relatives, had purchased second-class journey tickets for travelling
from Aligarh to Etawah and was waiting for the Gomti Express at
Aligarh Railway Station. However, owing to a misunderstanding, they
boarded the Train No. 12398 ( Mahabodhi Express). It was pleaded that
when the ticket-checking staff came to inspect their tickets, the
appellant handed over her ticket, which was taken away on the ground
that the train does not stop at Etawah . Her case was that, upon the train
reaching Shikohabad Railway Station, she was forcibly pushed out of
the moving train, resulting in her falling into the gap between the train
and the platform and sustaining grievous injuries.The appellant was
initially taken to the Joint Hospital, Shikohabad , from where she was
referred to S.N. Medical College, Agra .
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the
appellant was not a bona fide passenger, as no valid journey ticket had
been recovered from her. It further disbelieved her account of having
been pushed out of the train by the ticket-checking staff and concluded
that she had, in all probability, jumped from the moving train upon
noticing the ticket-checking staff. Holding that the incident was of her
own making, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application.
4. Mr . Sood , learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned
judgment by contending that the appellant had specifically stated that
she had purchased a valid journey ticket and that the same had been
taken away by the ticket-checking staff. The non-recovery of the
ticket, therefore, could not have been treated as conclusive proof that
she was travelling without one. It is further submitted that the
contemporaneous railway record itself establishes that the appellant
Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

sustained injuries after falling from the moving train. The conclusion
that she had deliberately jumped from the train, it is urged, rests upon
mere inferences rather than any cogent evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits
that the appellant failed to produce the journey ticket or any
independent evidence establishing its purchase. It is further submitted
that the appellant’s version regarding the circumstances of the incident
was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal and that no case for
interference is made out.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on record, the questions which arise for consideration
are whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant had
failed to establish her status as a bona fide passenger and whether the
injuries sustained by her resulted from an “untoward incident” within
the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Act”).
7. Coming first to the question of the appellant’s status as a bona
fide passenger, Section 2(29) of the Act defines a “passenger” as a
person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The question, however, is
whether the non-recovery of a journey ticket, in the facts of the present
case, was sufficient to reject the appellant’s claim at the threshold.
8. The said issue is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in
1
“ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” held that the mere absence of a ticket
with an injured or deceased person does not, by itself, negate the claim
that such person was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden rests

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

upon the claimant, which may be discharged by placing the relevant
facts and circumstances on record, including by way of an affidavit.
Once this initial burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the Railways
to rebut the claim on the basis of the evidence and attending
circumstances.The aforesaid principle has also been reiterated in “ Lata
2
v. Union of India ” and “ Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v.
3
Union of India ” .
In the present case, the appellant’s specific case is that she had
purchased a second-class journey ticket for travelling from Aligarh to
Etawah and that the ticket was taken away by the ticket-checking staff
after she inadvertently boarded the Mahabodhi Express instead of the
Gomti Express. The appellant reiterated her version in her evidence
before the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the
circumstances in which the appellant had boarded the Mahabodhi
Express and the absence of a ticket at the time of the incident. Her
explanation regarding the ticket having been taken away was required
to be examined on the touchstone of the principles laid down in “Rina
Devi” (supra), “Lata” (supra), and “ Sukhabhai Nanjibhai
Makwana ” (supra). The absence of the ticket, thus, could not have
concluded the issue against the appellant. The finding returned by the
Tribunal on this aspect, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
10. The next question is whether the injuries sustained by the
appellant resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of

2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
3
2026 INSC 1056
Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

the Act. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act defines an “untoward incident” to
include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying
passengers. Section 124-A provides for compensation where a
passenger suffers injury or dies as a result of an untoward incident,
irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or
default on the part of the Railway Administration, subject to the
exceptions stipulated therein. The statutory scheme is thus founded
upon the principle of no-fault liability.
11. The Deputy Station Superintendent’s memo dated 14.03.2024
records that information was received regarding a woman having
fallen from Train No. 12398 at Shikohabad Railway Station. The
appellant was thereafter found injured on Platform No. 2 and was
taken to the hospital. The statement of the Train Manager, Tej
Bahadur , reproduced in the respondent’s written statement, also
records that, while the train was passing Shikohabad Railway Station
at a restricted speed, he heard an alarm, proceeded towards the relevant
gate and found a woman who had fallen from the train, with one of her
legs severely injured.
12. The aforesaid contemporaneous material indicate towards the
conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries in an incident involving
a fall from the moving train. The medical record further corroborates
the nature and severity of the injuries, including the eventual
amputation of her left leg above the knee. The material placed on
record and relied upon by the appellant cannot be brushed aside merely
because the precise manner in which the appellant fell from the train is
disputed.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

13. The Tribunal has accepted the inference that the appellant
deliberately jumped from the moving train upon noticing the ticket-
checking staff. However, the contemporaneous railway record relied
upon by the respondent records that the appellant had fallen from the
train. It does not independently establish that she had deliberately
jumped. The distinction between the fact of a fall and the inference
drawn as to the circumstances leading to it was required to be kept in
view.
14. The Tribunal also concluded that the entire incident was of the
appellant’s own making. In this regard, it is necessary to bear in mind
the distinction between negligence and self-inflicted injury. The
statutory exception concerning self-inflicted injury cannot be invoked
merely because the conduct of the injured person is considered
imprudent or negligent. The material must establish the circumstances
necessary to attract the relevant statutory exception. The inference that
the appellant jumped from the train, drawn primarily from the non-
recovery of the ticket and the circumstances in which she had boarded
the train, does not, in the facts of the present case, furnish a sufficient
basis for denying the claim.
15. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess
the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance
with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same
within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this
purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on
18.03.2027.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

16. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
17. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
FAO 230/2025 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12