Smt. Shahnaz Begum vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 01.09.2026
Pronounced on : 08.09.2026
Uploaded on : 08.09.2026

+ FAO 135/2026

SMT. SHAHNAZ BEGUM .....Appellant

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

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC with Ms.
Pragya Bharti and Mr. Somnath
Bhattarjee, 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 23.01.2026 passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the “Tribunal”) in OA/II/DLI/624/2024 titled as “ Smt.
Shahnaz Begum v. Union of India ”.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 04.07.2024, one Mushaid
Hussain (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), along with his co-
passenger and friend Mohd. Shan , was travelling from Chandigarh to
Bareilly in Train No. 22356 ( Patliputra SF Express). A journey ticket
bearing No. 50633534, issued from Chandigarh on 04.07.2024 for two
Signature Not Verified
FAO 135/2026 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:00:13

adults travelling to Bareilly Junction, was produced on record and
subsequently verified as genuine. The case of the appellant is that, during
the course of the said travel, when the train was near Chudiyala Railway
Station, the deceased fell from the running train, sustained fatal injuries
and consequently died on the spot.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants on the ground that although the
deceased was a bona fide passenger, his death was not the result of an
“untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).The said finding has not been
challenged by the respondent and has, therefore, attained finality.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
misread the evidence and in this regard, contended that the
contemporaneous railway record records the deceased as having fallen
from Train No.22356 and there is no eyewitness to any intentional jump.
Learned counsel further submits that even the co-passenger relied upon
by the Tribunal did not witness the actual fall and that the Tribunal could
not have converted the alleged negligence of the deceased into a “self-
inflicted injury”. It is further submitted that the DRM inquiry itself was
initiated only on 15.02.2025, several months after the incident, and was
submitted on 13.05.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent refutes the aforesaid
contentions and submits that the deceased was consciously hanging
outside the doorway of the running train despite being warned by his co-
passenger and other passengers. It is contended that his fall was thus a
consequence of his own conduct and falls within the statutory exception
Signature Not Verified
FAO 135/2026 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:00:13

relating to self-inflicted injury. The respondent also relies upon the fact
that the body was found between the railway tracks.
6. At the outset, the finding regarding the bona fide passenger status
having attained finality, the only question that arises for consideration
is whether the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident”
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Actor whether the
respondent has established that the case falls within one of the exceptions
to the liability under Section 124-A of the Act.
7. The starting point for considering this question would necessarily
be the contemporaneous record, since the precise manner in which the
deceased came to sustain the injuries has to be assessed from the material
generated at or around the time of the occurrence. The statement of
the Station Master, Chudiyala , records that during his duty hours
information was received regarding the deceased having fallen from
Train No.22356 at Chudiyala and further stated that the information was
immediately conveyed to the RPF/GRP authorities. Thus, the earliest
railway record relied upon by the respondent itself proceeds on the basis
that information had been received of a “fall from Train No.22356”.
8. The Tribunal’s principal reliance is upon the statement of CW-
1/ Mohd. Shan . He stated that after re-boarding the train at Saharanpur, he
was sitting in the general compartment near the gate while the deceased
was standing near the gate. He further stated that the deceased was
hanging near the door and that he and other co-passengers tried to stop
him. However, his statement, when read in its entirety, shows that the
reference to the deceased hanging near the door pertains to the period
before they got down at Saharanpur . After re-boarding the train, his
Signature Not Verified
FAO 135/2026 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:00:13

subsequent account is that the deceased went towards the gate and was
standing there. He does not state that the deceased again started hanging
from the door or was doing any stunts. His statement is that he suddenly
heard a noise and that passengers sitting near him told him that the
person travelling with him had fallen from the train.
9. Thus, the evidence establishes that the deceased was travelling in
an overcrowded general compartment and was near the doorway before
the incident. At the same time, the person travelling with him did not
witness the actual fall and as per the available records, there is no other
eye witness to the accident. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to
conclude that the deceased had been “doing stunts” and that his fall was
consequently self-inflicted.
10. At this stage, it is apposite to take note of the decision of the
1
Supreme Court in “ Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India ” , wherein it was
observed as here under:
“ The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed
by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the
train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the
railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is
not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a
criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section
124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an
element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open
doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent
act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a
criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after
assuming everything in its favour… ”

11. The principle assumes even greater significance in the present case
because the overcrowding of the compartment is not merely an assertion

1
(2010) 12 SCC 443
Signature Not Verified
FAO 135/2026 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:00:13

made by the appellant, the same also finds place in the statement of Shan ,
who was himself travelling in the same compartment. The Tribunal has
described the deceased’s conduct as “doing stunts”. That expression,
however, is not itself a finding of fact emerging from any eyewitness
account of the fall. There is a material distinction between evidence of
conduct immediately preceding an accident and evidence establishing an
intention to cause an injury. The former may, at the highest, establish
negligence, it does not establish the latter. The respondent also cannot
derive assistance merely from the fact that the body was found between
the railway tracks.

12. The present record contains an additional circumstance which
weighs against the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. The “Form-
II” itself records the case as one involving a fall from Train No.22356
and identifies Shan as the eyewitness, yet his own account, as noticed
above, is not an account of having seen the fall. He heard the noise and
was informed by other passengers that the deceased had fallen. Thus, the
designation of Shan as an “eyewitness” in the railway form cannot
substitute for the contents of his actual statement.
13. Therefore, on an overall consideration of the record, the
circumstance that clearly stands established is that there is no direct
evidence of any intention on his part to inflict injury upon himself. In
these circumstances, the respondent has failed to establish that the death
resulted from a self-inflicted injury, a suicide, or any other exception
contemplated under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.
14. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and keeping in mind the
beneficial nature of the legislation, the claim cannot be rejected on the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 135/2026 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:00:13

basis of conjectures as to the manner in which the incident occurred.
15. 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.
16. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
17. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.


MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
FAO 135/2026 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:00:13