Sushila vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 22.07.2026
Pronounced on : 31.08.2026
Uploaded on : 31.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010032082016

+ FAO 430/2016

SUSHILA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mr. D.
Endow and Ms. Shivangi Singh,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Ms.Ruchita
Shrivastava and Mr. Sparsh
Jain, 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
30.05.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/125/2015.
2. Briefly stated, on 16.10.2014, one Bharat (hereinafter referred to
as the “deceased”), along with his three friends, was travelling from
Signature Not Verified
FAO 430/2016 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07

Kishan Ganj Railway Station to Mangolpuri Railway Station by the 1-
DJ Delhi - Jind Passenger train after purchasing separate valid second-
class ordinary railway journey tickets. It was stated that owing to
heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased and his friends were
standing at the opposite-side door of the compartment. According to
the appellant, when the train reached Mangolpuri Railway Station and
was still in motion, the deceased accidentally fell from the moving
train on the side opposite to the platform and suffered fatal injuries. It
was further stated that the deceased was taken by his friends to Sanjay
Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri , where he was declared
brought dead.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased
was travelling along with his friends in a passenger train after
purchasing a valid journey ticket, as deposed by his co-passenger
Pummy and the fact that the ticket was not recovered from the
deceased could not, by itself, defeat the claim. It was further submitted
that the deceased had fallen from the moving train and the incident,
therefore, constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”). Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court
1
in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” .
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the appellant had failed to establish that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger or that he had died as a result of an
accidental fall from thetrain. It was submitted that the

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 430/2016 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07

contemporaneous material, including the DRM report and the
statement of the eye witness Sandeep , showed that while the deceased
was standing on the railway line, he was struck by another train. It was
further submitted that the version of Pummy , who was examined as
AW-2, was unreliable and was inconsistent with his own statement,
given at the time of the inquiry, forming part of the DRM report.
5. It is trite law that mere non-recovery of a railway ticket from an
injured or deceased passenger cannot, by itself, be determinative of the
question whether such person was a bonafide passenger. At the same
time, the initial burden of establishing the status of a bona fide
passenger lies upon the claimant and the same has to be examined in
the light of the attending circumstances of the case. The decision of the
Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) does not dispense with the
requirement of establishing the foundational facts of the journey and
the occurrence.
In the present case, the evidence led by the appellant, however,
does not support their version. Pummy /AW-2, who claimed to have
been travelling with the deceased, categorically stated that the ticket
had been purchased by the deceased, although he did not know the
cost of the ticket. Significantly, when asked about the train, he stated
that they were travelling in a passenger train but did not know the
name of the train as well.The said testimony assumes significance
when considered in contrast with his statement forming part of the
DRM report. In the said statement, he stated that they had purchased
tickets for Rs.5/- each and had boarded the passenger train and further
stated that, owing to the rush in the train, they had got down on the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 430/2016 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07

other side of the platform.Thus, the version emerging from the DRM
record is materially different from the case set up before the Tribunal.
6. The aforesaid evidence is further contradicted by the statement
of Sandeep , which forms part of the DRM report. Sandeep is recorded
as an on-the-spot eye witness of the alleged incident. He stated that on
16.10.2014 he had come to Mangolpuri Railway Station to see off his
relative who was to board the train going to Jind . He saw one boy
“doing over acting by standing in between the railway line” and two
boys on the platform. According to him, the boy remained standing on
the railway line and an express train came from the Nangloi side, with
which the boy was hit. He further stated that he, along with other
passengers, removed the injured boy from the railway line and
thereafter, the boys accompanying the deceased took him to a hospital.
The said is not an inference drawn subsequently from the place of
recovery of the body, rather, it is a specific account of the occurrence
by a person who claims to have been present at the exact point of
occurrence. The said testimony, in the opinion of this Court, is both
relevant as well as credible.
7. The contemporaneous railway record also lends support to this
version. The report of the Inspector In-charge, Thana RPF,
Shakurbasti , records that the deceased was “standing between the
tracks doing some stunts” when Train No.12482 passed through Line
No. It further records that, after the train had crossed, the deceased was
found lying between the tracks.
8. The other contemporaneous material relied upon by the
appellant also does not establish the pleaded accidental fall from the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 430/2016 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07

train. The DD entry No.22 PP records that, upon receiving
information, the police reached Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital
where Bharat was declared brought dead, and that during the search of
the deceased nothing was recovered.
9. It is also relevant that the driver and guard of passenger train
No.54031, whose statements were recorded during the departmental
inquiry, stated that on 16.10.2014 they were on duty on the said train
from Delhi to Jind and that “no untoward incident” at Mangolpuri
Railway Station occurred during their duty, nor did any such incident
come to their notice or was reported to them.

10. Thus, the issue before this Court is not merely one of non-
recovery of the journey ticket. If the appellant had otherwise
established a credible case that the deceased was travelling in the train
and had accidentally fallen therefrom, non-recovery of the ticket could
not, by itself, have been treated as fatal to the claim. The difficulty in
the present case is anterior to that question, as the evidence available
on record specifically indicates that the deceased was “on the railway
line” and was struck by Train No.12482.
11. Hence, on an overall consideration of the evidence, this Court
finds that theappellant has failed to establish the foundational
requirement of being a bonafide passenger and, consequently, his
claim for compensationcannot be sustained.
12. Accordingly, in light of the reasoning given in the impugned
order and the submissions put forth, I do not find force in the merits of
the contentions and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 430/2016 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07

13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2026
na


Signature Not Verified
FAO 430/2016 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07