Savita Kataria & Ors vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 31.08.2026
Pronounced on : 08.09.2026
Uploaded on : 08.09.2026

+ FAO 30/2020

SAVITA KATARIA & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mr. Alok
Kumar, Ms. Shivangi Singh and
Ms. Bhawna Tandon, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari (CGSC)
with Mr. Kamaldeep and Ms.
Nandini Aggarwal, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 2082/2020 (seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in
filing the appeal)
1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of accordingly.

Signature Not Verified
FAO 30/2020 Page 1 of 5

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

FAO 30/2020
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 20.08.2019 passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. OA(IIu) 4/2019, whereby the
claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation on account
of the death of her husband came to be dismissed.
2. The appellants are the widow and minor children of one Sh. Kamal
Kishore Kataria (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”). The case of
the appellants is that on 31.03.2018, the deceased was travelling from
Delhi towards Ghaziabad by train. When the train reached AnandVihar
Railway Station, he accidentally fell from the train and sustained fatal
injuries. His dead body was subsequently found near the railway track at
Old Anand Vihar Railway Station towards the Ghaziabad side.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred
in treating non-recovery of the railway ticket as conclusive against the
appellants. It is submitted that the deceased’s journey and loss of the
ticket were specifically stated on oath by the appellant. It is further
submitted that the contemporaneous police record, including DD
No.14A, the subsequent DD entry, the Station Master memo and the
seizure memo, records the occurrence as a train accident. Reliance has
1
been placed on “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” and “ Lata v. Union of
2
India ” .
4. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the aforesaid

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 30/2020 Page 2 of 5

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

submission and contended that the deceased was not found in possession
of any journey ticket or travel authority and the appellant admittedly did
not witness the deceased boarding, de-boarding or falling from any train.
It is also submitted that the train involved in the incident was never
identified and, therefore, the finding sought by the appellants is of no
stand.
5. At the outset, the absence of a journey ticket cannot, by itself,
conclude the issue against the appellants. In Rina Devi (supra), the
Supreme Court held that the initial burden on the claimant is not an
unduly onerous one and can be discharged by placing the relevant facts
and circumstances on record, whereafter the burden shifts to the
Railways. The same position has subsequently been reiterated
in Lata (supra).
6. In the present case, the appellant, in her affidavit before the
Tribunal, categorically stated that the deceased was travelling from Delhi
to Ghaziabad after boarding a train and that the ticket and other articles
were lost in the accident. Her statement cannot be rejected merely
because she was not accompanying the deceased. More importantly, the
respondent failed torebut the aforesaid. Its case solely rested on the non-
recovery of the ticket and the DRM report. The deceased was, therefore,
required to be treated as a bona fide passenger for the purposes of the
claim.
7. Insofar as the occurrence of an “untoward incident” is concerned,
the Tribunal appears to have proceeded principally on the premise that
since there was no proof of purchase of any journey ticket and the
deceased was found lying near the railway track, it could not be inferred
Signature Not Verified
FAO 30/2020 Page 3 of 5

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

that he had accidentally fallen from a train. In the considered opinion of
this Court, such an approach places an unduly onerous burden upon the
claimants.
8. The DD entry bearing No.14A dated 31.03.2018 records
information regarding a person having died in an accident at Anand
Vihar Railway Stationand the seizure memo prepared during the
investigation also records that the articles were recovered from the
deceased found at the said location “in train accident”. A claim arising
out of an accidental fall from a train would, by its very nature, often arise
in circumstances where no eyewitness is available. The manner of
occurrence, therefore, has to be gathered from the attending
circumstances and the contemporaneous material available on record. In
the present case, the material on record consistently points towards the
death having occurred in a train accident and nothing on record suggests
any circumstance to the contrary.
9. Pertinently, there is no material to suggest that the deceased had
deliberately entered upon the railway track, attempted to commit suicide
or suffered a self-inflicted injury. In the absence of any such material, the
claim could not have been rejected merely because the precise train from
which the deceased fell or the exact manner of his fall could not be
established.
10. It is well settled that the provisions relating to compensation under
the Act constitute beneficial legislation and Section 124-A embodies the
principle of strict liability, subject to the exceptions expressly provided
therein. The expression “accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers” occurring in Section 123(c)(2) cannot, therefore, be
Signature Not Verified
FAO 30/2020 Page 4 of 5

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

construed in a manner which would require the claimants to prove the
occurrence with the degree of precision ordinarily expected in adversarial
proceedings concerning fault or negligence.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the
case of an accidental fall was based merely on conjecture cannot be
sustained. Rather, it is the rejection of the claim, despite the attending
circumstances and in the absence of any material attracting an exception
under Section 124-A, which rests on an inference unsupported by the
record.
12. 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.
13. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
14. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.


MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 30/2020 Page 5 of 5

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