Kamlesh Kumari vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 24.08.2026
Pronounced on : 03.09.2026
Uploaded on : 03.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010437672022

+ FAO 297/2022

KAMLESH KUMARI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
with Mr. Shailendra Kumar and
Ms. Upanita, 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 impugned judgment
dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No.
OA II(u)/DLI/580/2021, whereby the claim application filed by the
appellant seeking compensation for the injuries allegedly suffered in
an “untoward incident” was dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 297/2022 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

2. The brief facts of the case, as set up before the Tribunal, are that
on 11.04.2019, the appellant purchased a railway ticket for travelling
from Kampil Road to Kasganj by Train No.55331 ( Farrukhabad -
Kasganj Passenger Train). It is her case that she boarded the train from
Platform No.1 at Kampil Road Railway Station and, due to heavy rush
and jostling of passengers, was standing near the door of the
compartment. According to her, when the train jerked, her foot slipped
and she fell between the train and the platform. She suffered grievous
injuries, including amputation of her left arm, fractures of the right
arm and hip and head injuries requiring 17 stitches.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant
had produced the original journey ticket, which was also verified, and
that the GRP entry recorded that a woman had fallen at Platform No.1
at about 05:50 hours. It was further submitted that the Loco Pilot’s
notebook was unreliable as the relevant entry appeared on the reverse
side of the page dated 10.04.2019 and that the DRM inquiry had been
conducted subsequently. Reliance was placed upon “ Union of India v.
1 2
Rina Devi ” and “ Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar ” .
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the record
consistently shows that the appellant “came in front of Train
No.55331” while it was entering Platform No.1. It was submitted that
the train had not departed from Kampil Road at the relevant time and,
therefore, the appellant’s version that she had boarded the train and
thereafter fallen from it is not borne out from the record.The

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 297/2022 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

respondent has relied upon the Railway records and the statement of
the Loco Pilot, Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Meena , who was examined
before the Tribunal as RW-1 and also produced the original Loco
Pilot’s notebook.
5. Admittedly, the appellant has produced journey ticket bearing
No.73776016, which is stated to have been purchased on 11.04.2019
for the journey from Kampil Road to Kasganj , however, that by itself
does not conclude the matter. The ticket may establish the intended
journey, but the appellant still had to establish that she was travelling
in the train in question and that the injuries suffered by her arose out of
an occurrence covered by Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
6. The appellant’s entire claim rests upon the assertion that she had
“already boarded Train No.55331” and had fallen from it due to the
rush and jostling of passengers when the train jerked, however, on the
other hand, the Loco Pilot, Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Meena , who was
examined before the Tribunal as RW-1, has specifically stated that he
was on duty on Train No.55331 on 11.04.2019, and the said train
reached Kampil Road at 05:52 hours and departed at 06:10 hours. He
further deposed that while the train was entering Platform No.1, one
woman “intentionally jumped in front of the engine” and in support of
his testimony, he produced the original Loco Pilot’s notebook.
7. It is pertinent to note that the objection regarding the placement
of the entry in the Loco Pilot’s notebook was considered by the
Tribunal. The relevant entry is on the reverse side of the page dated
10.04.2019, whereas the entries pertaining to 11.04.2019 appear on the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 297/2022 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

other side. The Loco Pilot has specifically explained this position and
clarified that “06:07” was the time of the entry and not the date. There
is nothing in his cross-examination which would render this
explanation inherently improbable. The mere fact that different
portions of the entry were written with different pens is also explained
by his statement that the relevant portion was written by the Assistant
Loco Pilot.
8. More importantly, the said version is duly supported by the
timing of the train and the contemporaneous Station records, including
the testimony of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , the Station Superintendent of
Kampil Road. Additionally,the Guard, Anil Kumar Singh , also relayed
a memo on 11.04.2019 itself recording that a woman had “jumped in
front of Train No.55331”.
9. Significantly, the timing of the trainalso assumes significance as
the train reached Kampil Road at 05:52 hours and departed at 06:10
hours, whereas the Loco Pilot’s entry is of 06:07 hours. Thus, the
occurrence, though took place after the arrival of Train No.55331 at
Kampil Road, but before its departure from the station. The Railway
records, therefore, do not support the sequence pleaded by the
appellant that she had boarded the train and thereafter fell from the
moving train.
10. The decision in Rina Devi (supra), relied upon by the appellant,
also does not alter the position. It is, though, well settled that an
accidental fall in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train can
constitute an “untoward incident”. However, the applicability of that
principle is contingent upon the foundational fact of boarding or de-
Signature Not Verified
FAO 297/2022 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

boarding being established. In the present case, the material on record
does not establish that the appellant had boarded Train No.55331 and
had thereafter fallen from it.
11. Taking all these factors into account, this Court finds that the
material on record consistently shows that the occurrence took place
when the train was entering Platform No.1 and before its departure.
The evidence of the Loco Pilot, supported by the contemporaneous
Station records, establishes that the version set up by the appellant of
having boarded the train and thereafter falling from it is not
substantiated by the record.

12. Consequently, the appellant has failed to establish that the
injuries suffered by her arose out of an “untoward incident” within the
meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. Once the occurrence itself is not
established as an untoward incident, the statutory liability under
Section 124-A does not arise.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.



MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER03, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 297/2022 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49