Ram Parvesh Singh & Ors vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 02.09.2026
Pronounced on : 08.09.2026
Uploaded on : 08.09.2026

+ FAO 95/2018

RAM PARVESH SINGH & ORS .....Appellants

Through: Mr. N.K. Gupta, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, SPC with
Mr. Sampan, Mr. Manu Shukla and
Mr. Anish Sharma, 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 21.04.2017 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in OA(IIu) 147/2015, whereby the claim application filed
by the appellants came to be dismissed.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 13.04.2015, one Abhay Kumar
Singh (hereinafter referred to asthe “deceased”) was travelling from New
Delhi to Gaya by Train No. 12382 ( Poorva Express), along with his co-
passenger JayNandan Pal . It was averred that the deceased had purchased a
valid second class superfast journey ticket for the said journey and during
Signature Not Verified
FAO 95/2018 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:53:23

the course of the said travel, when the train halted at Mughalsarai , the
deceased alighted to purchase drinking water and thereafter re-boarded the
same train. Owing to heavy rush in the compartment, he was standing near
the gate and due to a sudden jerk, he fell from the train and sustained fatal
injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased
was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the alleged incident qualify as an
“untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”).

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in
discarding the testimony of Jay Nandan Pal , who had admittedly travelled
with the deceased and had specifically deposed regarding the purchase of
two tickets at New Delhi . It is contended that the Tribunal proceeded on
minor discrepancies in his testimony, without appreciating that he was an
eye-witness to the deceased’s journey and had specifically deposed
regarding the circumstances of the journey. It is submitted that no material
was produced by the Railways to establish this alternative version. Reliance
1 2
is placed on “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” and “ Lata v. Union of India ” .
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, refutes the
aforesaid submissions and submitted that no journey ticket was recovered
from the deceased and that the statement of Jay Nandan Pal suffers from
several discrepancies. It is further submitted that there was no
contemporaneous railway record showing that the deceased had fallen from

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 95/2018 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:53:23

Train No. 12382 and that the deceased, in fact, had attempted to board the
moving train at Mughalsarai and fell in the process. According to the
respondent, the occurrence was thus attributable to the deceased’s own
negligence and did not constitute an “untoward incident”.
6. Coming first to the question whether the deceased was a bona
fide passenger, the appellants’ case is supported by the testimony of a co-
passenger, namely, Jay Nandan Pal , who stated that he had travelled with
the deceased from and had seen the deceased purchase two tickets for the
journey. He further stated that the tickets were kept in the deceased’s shirt
pocket.

7. The Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) has held that the initial
burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger lies upon
the claimant and can be discharged by placing the relevant facts and
circumstances on record. The same principle has recently been reiterated
in Lata (supra). The burden, once discharged, shifts upon the Railways to
rebut the same by cogent material.
In the present case, the testimony of Jay Nandan Pal , who was
examined as AW-2, is not a mere assertion made after the occurrence. He
accompanied the deceased from New Delhi and categorically deposed
regarding the purchase of the two tickets and them being kept in the
deceased’s shirt pocket, in his presence. The fact that the journey ticket was
not subsequently recovered cannot, by itself, displace this evidence,
particularly when the appellants’ consistent case is that the ticket was lost in
the occurrence.
8. The Tribunal, while discarding the testimony of Jay Nandan Pal ,
noticed that he could not state the exact amount for which the tickets were
Signature Not Verified
FAO 95/2018 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:53:23

purchased, questioned why he had handed over the money to the deceased
for purchasing the tickets, and also referred to his inability to give
particulars regarding his employment and residence in Delhi . These
circumstances, however, do not go to the root of his statement that he had
travelled with the deceased from New Delhi .
9. Insofar as the occurrence of the incident is concerned, the Tribunal
declined to accept the appellants’ case principally on the ground that there
was no substantial evidence to establish that the deceased had fallen from
the train. However, the material on record does consistently indicate a fall
from Train No. 12382. The claim application records the place of occurrence
as about 3 kilometres west of Rafiganj Station, between Pole Nos. 509/14
and 509/12, and an U.D. Case No. 22/15 was registered at Rail Police
Station, Son Nagar in respect of the incident. Significantly, the Railway’s
own investigation report records that the deceased had fallen from Train No.
12382. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal proceeds on the absence of
evidence, without considering the material which, on its face, supports the
occurrence of a fall from the train.
Even otherwise, the mere fact that the deceased had alighted at
Mughalsarai and thereafter re-boarded the train would not disentitle him to
compensation. The principle laid down in Rina Devi (supra) covers even
cases of accidental fall while boarding or alighting from a train.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the DRM Report was not filed before
the Tribunal. The respondent’s own written statement records that the said
report was still awaited and that it reserved its right to raise further
objections after considering and filing the same. The DRM Report has now
been placed before this Court for the first time in the present appeal. Thus,
Signature Not Verified
FAO 95/2018 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:53:23

the said report could not have formed the basis of the Tribunal’s finding. At
the same time, having been placed before this Court, its contents have been
considered along with the contemporaneous material on record.
Viewed cumulatively, the contemporaneous record, the evidence of
the accompanying co-passenger and the Railway’s own investigation report
support the appellants’ case.
11. Accordingly, 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 appellants 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 25.09.2026.
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.


MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
FAO 95/2018 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:53:23