Raja Ram vs Union Of India & Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 20.08.2026
Pronounced on : 31.08.2026
Uploaded on : 31.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010462042019

+ FAO 467/2019

RAJA RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop and
Ms.Shivangi Singh, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC
alongwith Ms.M.Saxena,
Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 50913/2019 (seeking condonation of delay of 210 days
in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 210 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
the only earning member of the family and belongs to an economically
weaker section and, due to paucity of funds as well as for the reason
that his counsel met with an accident,was unable to get in contact with
a new counsel and obtain timely legal advice.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 1 of 8

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

3. The delay is neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned by the
aforesaid bona fide circumstances.
1
4. It is noteworthy that in “ Mohsina vs. Union of India ” , a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the
appeal, taking into account the weak economic condition of the
2
appellant/ claimant. Similarly, in “ Reshma vs. Union of India ” ,this
Court condoned a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal, keeping in
view the beneficial nature of the legislation and the liberal approach
required in such matters.
5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, and guided by the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions,
as well as the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court
finds that the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for the
delay in filing the present appeal.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay
of 210 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
7. The application is disposed of accordingly.
FAO 467/2019
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated
23.01.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.
OA(IIu)/203/2017.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 07.06.2017, one Mintu

1
(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003
2
FAO 25/2022
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 2 of 8

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

(hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from
Gorakhpur to New Delhi by an Express train on the strength of a valid
journey ticket No.95389252. It was pleaded that there was heavy rush
in the train and, consequently, the deceased was standing near the door
of the compartment and when the train was running near Tundla
Railway Station, it allegedly gave a sudden jerk and, on account of the
consequent push/thrust of the co-passengers inside the overcrowded
compartment, the deceased lost his balance and fell from the running
train.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
failed to appreciate that journey ticket was placed on record and that
its particulars were subsequently verified by the Railway authorities. It
is submitted that the appellant’s case regarding recovery of the ticket
was supported by the panchnama , which specifically records the purse
containing Rs.110/- and the journey ticket. Learned counsel submits
that the discrepancy between the copy of the panchnama filed by the
appellant and the copy annexed with the DRM Report could not, by
itself, lead to the conclusion that the ticket had been subsequently
introduced. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer, SI
Ram Veer Singh , was examined as RW-1 only because the Tribunal
itself considered the discrepancy necessary to be clarified.It is also
submitted that there was no independent eyewitness produced by the
Railways to establish any alternative manner of occurrence. Reliance
is placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in “ Union
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 3 of 8

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

3 4
of India v. Rina Devi ” and “ Lata v. Union of India ” .
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the contemporaneous panchnama records recovery of
only a purse containing the Voter Identity Card and a paper slip
bearing a mobile number in its detailed narration. It is pointed out that
the copy of the same annexed with the DRM Report does not mention
the ticket in the list of enclosures, whereas the copy filed by the
appellant contains such reference. It is further submitted that RW-1
admitted that his final report submitted to the SSP did not mention
recovery of the ticket and that his explanation regarding incorrect
placement of carbon did not explain the other discrepancies.
5. Coming first to the question whether the deceased was a bona
fide passenger, the appellant relies upon journey ticket bearing
No.95389252 for the journey from Gorakhpur to New Delhi . The
Tribunal, however, declined to accept the ticket principally on account
of the discrepancy between the two copies of the panchnama . The
copy filed by the appellant contains a reference to the ticket in the
portion relating to the articles recovered, whereas the copy
accompanying the DRM Report does not contain the ticket in its list of
enclosures.
6. In this regard, the Tribunal summoned SI Ram Veer Singh /RW-
1, the Investigating Officer, along with the original case record. When
questioned regarding the absence of the ticket from the copy of the
panchnama accompanying the DRM Report, he stated that while

3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 4 of 8

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

preparing a photocopy from a duplicate record, the portion containing
the ticket might not have been reproduced due to incorrect placement
of the carbon. He further stated that the omission of the ticket from the
main description of the articles recovered might have been a mistake.
7. At this stage, it is apposite to note the decision of the Supreme
Court in { Rina Devi (supra)}wherein it was held that the initial burden
of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger lies upon
the claimant and that the same can be discharged by placing the
relevant facts and circumstances on record. The Supreme Court has
recently reiterated the same principle in { Lata (supra)}.

8. The present case stands on a somewhat stronger footing than a
case based merely upon an assertion that the deceased had purchased a
ticket. Here, along with the appellant’s statement regarding
information received from the deceased about purchasing of the
journey ticket, a valid ticket bearing No.95389252 was produced, its
particulars were subjected to verification by the Railway authorities,
and one version of the contemporaneous panchnama specifically
contains the reference to the ticket amongst the articles recovered. The
discrepancy in the copies of the panchnama and the omission of the
ticket from the Investigating Officer’s final report undoubtedly
constitute circumstances requiring consideration, but they do not, in
the facts of the present case, establish that the ticket was forged or that
it was unrelated to the deceased.
9. The Tribunal was required to assess the effect of the
discrepancy along with the verified ticket particulars and the other
material on record, rather than treating the discrepancy itself as
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 5 of 8

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

conclusive proof of subsequent manipulation. The appellant has placed
sufficient material to discharge the initial burden of establishing bona
fide passenger status and the respondents, despite disputing the ticket,
have not produced material establishing that ticket No.95389252 was
forged or that its verified particulars were unrelated to the deceased.
10. The next question is whether the death of the deceased resulted
from an accidental fall from a train so as to constitute an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-
A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
11. The contemporaneous record establishes that a dead body was
found near the Down Starter Signal of Mitawali Station and the
panchnama , more specifically, records the location as near Point
No.202 on the Down Loop Line. The station layout produced before
the Tribunal showed Point No.202 to be on the Down Loop Line,
slightly before the Down Starter Signal and at a considerable distance
from the Up Main Line and Up Loop Line and itwas on this basis that
the Tribunal concluded that the deceased could not have fallen from a
train travelling from Gorakhpur to New Delhi . The record, however,
does not contain any evidence regarding the precise trajectory of a
person falling from a moving train or establishing, as a matter of fact,
that a person falling from a train travelling on the Up line could not
come to rest at the location recorded.
12. The DRM Report is stated to have concluded that the incident
occurred due to a negligent act on the part of the deceased. However,
once the occurrence is otherwise brought within the ambit of an
“untoward incident”, the question of negligence on the part of the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 6 of 8

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

deceased does not, by itself, defeat the statutory claim. A gainful
reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme
5
Court in “ Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar ” wherein it
was held that Section 124-A embodies the principle of strict liability or
no-fault liability and that, where the case falls within the statutory
provision, the question of fault on the part of the passenger is not
determinative. The Court also emphasised that the expression
“accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”
has to receive a liberal interpretation consistent with the beneficial
object of the legislation. In the present case, the Tribunal has not
recorded any finding of suicide, self-inflicted injury or any of the other
statutory exceptions. Its conclusion rests principally on the perceived
inconsistency between the direction of travel and that circumstance,
without more, is insufficient to displace the case of accidental fall
when considered with the verified journey ticket, the factum of the
deceased being found with fatal ante-mortem injuries at the railway
premises, and the absence of any established alternative cause of
death.
13. Hence, on a cumulative consideration of the material, this Court
is of the view that the circumstances on record establishthat the
deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger and the occurrence
squarely falls within the meaning of an “untoward incident”.
14. 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

5
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 7 of 8

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

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
18.09.2026.
15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
16. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 467/2019 Page 8 of 8

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