Monika & Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 20.08.2026
Pronounced on : 07.09.2026
Uploaded on : 07.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010607662025

+ FAO 234/2025

MONIKA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

Versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Vikrant Nilesh Goyal,
Ms.Laavanya Kaushik and
Mr.Inderpeet Singh, Advocates,
Advocates

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
20.05.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/DLI/187/2024.
2. Briefly stated, one Sh. Mohit Sharma (hereinafter referred to as
the “deceased”) was a regular traveller between Meerut City and New
Signature Not Verified
FAO 234/2025 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:56:18

Ghaziabad and was holding a valid MST, valid from 26.09.2023 to
25.10.2023. It was pleaded that on 27.09.2023, after finishing work, he
along with his co-passenger, Sh. Vishal Sharma , reached New
Ghaziabad Railway Station and was waiting at Platform No. 1 for
Shalimar Express. When Train No. 18477 Kalinga Utkal Express
arrived/passed the platform at slow speed, there was commotion and
people started saying that Shalimar Express had come. The deceased,
standing a few coaches behind, tried to board the moving train amid
the rush, slipped, came between the train and the platform, and died on
the spot due to serious injuries. It was further averred that the MST
was recovered during jamatalashi .
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger and that recovery of the valid MST during
jamatalashi , coupled with the affidavits of the widow and the eye-
witness co-passenger, discharged the initial burden. Reliance in this
regard was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in “ Union of
1
India v. Rina Devi ”. It was further submitted that the deceased had
accidentally fallen while attempting to board the train and, therefore,
the incident constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased
was travelling as a bona fide passenger of the train in question. It was
submitted that Train No. 18477 Kalinga Utkal Express has no

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 234/2025 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:56:18

scheduled stoppage at New Ghaziabad and that the contemporaneous
records, including the Station Master’s memo, roznamcha , panchnama
and post-mortem report, indicate that the body of the deceased came in
the grip of / was cut by the train rather than that he fell while boarding.
It was further submitted that the versions of the alleged eye-witness
were contradictory and the narrative of mistaking the train and falling
while boarding appeared to be an afterthought.
5. It is, though, well settled that mere non-recovery of a journey
ticket cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive against the claimant
and that the initial burden of establishing that the deceased was
travelling as a bona fide passenger must be discharged from the
evidence and attending circumstances, however, in this case, the
burden cast upon the appellants is not discharged. The decision in Rina
Devi (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, cannot
be read as dispensing with the requirement of establishing that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger.
6. A perusal of the record would showthat the MST recovered
from the deceasedwas valid for the relevant period and route, however,
the said recovery, by itself, does not establish that the deceased was
travelling in the train in question at the time of the alleged
incident.Pertinently, AW-2/ Sh. VishalSharma , the co-passenger of the
deceased, though examined, gave materially differing versions, as in
his application to the police and in the panchnama he stated that
thedeceased died after coming in the grip of the train whereas in the
subsequent statements before the Tribunal he introduced the version of
an attempt to board amid rush where the deceased mistook this train
Signature Not Verified
FAO 234/2025 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:56:18

with Shalimar Express. It is also significant to note that AW-2 was
himself one of the panchas to the panchnama , which does not record
any attempt of boarding or deboarding by the deceased. These
contradictions, in the opinion of this Court, seriously impair the
reliability of his testimony.
7. Coming to the manner of the occurrence of the alleged incident,
it is noted that the first information recorded by the Station Master and
the entries in the roznamcha record that a person had come into
contact with Train No. 18477, while the roznamcha also records that
the body was lying between the platform and the track and also
records the version furnished at the spot that the deceased was walking
on the track, with earphones plugged in, when the train came from
behind and hit him.Additionally, it is AW-2’s own admissionin the
cross-examination which establishes that both he and the deceased
were aware that Kalinga Utkal Express “does not” stop at New
Ghaziabad station and that they ordinarily travelled by Shalimar
Express. The narrative that the deceased mistook Kalinga Utkal
Express for Shalimar Express and attempted to board amid rush was
introduced subsequently and stands contradicted by the earliest
versions recorded on the date of the incident. In these circumstances,
particularly when the contemporaneous documents point to the body
having come in the grip of the train, the pleaded case of an accidental
fall from a passenger-carrying train cannot be accepted.
8. On an overall conspectus of the evidence on record, this Court
finds that theappellant has failed to establish the foundational
requirement of being a bonafide passenger andthat the death resulted
Signature Not Verified
FAO 234/2025 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:56:18

from an accidental fall from a passenger train so as to constitute an
“untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
9. Accordingly, in light of the reasoning given in the impugned
order and the submissions put forth, I do not find force in the
contentionsraised by the appellants and hence, there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
FAO 234/2025 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:56:18