Sarvesh Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 24.07.2026
Pronounced on : 31.08.2026
Uploaded on : 31.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010575742023

+ FAO 3/2024

SARVESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate

Versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with
Ms.Annu Singh, Advocate

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
16.05.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Applications
bearing No. OA/II(U)/DLI/2019/232.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 23.07.2019, one Sh. Harvesh
@ Harvesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”)was
travelling, by a superfast passenger train,from New Delhi to Ludhiana
Jn. on the strength of a valid journey ticket bearing no. UAB-
90628860. It is averred that during the course of the said travel,due to
Signature Not Verified
FAO 3/2024 Page 1 of 6

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

heavy rush and a sudden jerk, the deceased accidentally fell from the
running train and sustained fatal injuries. His dead body was
subsequently found alongside the railway track and post-mortem
examination was conducted at Civil Hospital, Khanna .
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application holding that the appellants had failed to establish that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred in an
“untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A
of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the journey
ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during
jamatalashi and was subsequently verified from the Railway records.
It is submitted that the Tribunal could not have discarded the formal
record of recovery merely on the basis of the RPF Roznamcha ,
particularly when the ticket particulars themselves stood verified by
the Railway authorities. It is further contended that the fact that the
body was discovered on the following morning does not establish that
the deceased had not fallen from the train during the preceding
night.Reliance is placed upon the post-mortem report, which records
that the injuries were smeared with black greasy material, noted by the
doctor to occur in a railway accident.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
there is no eyewitness to the alleged fall and that the evidence of
Sarvesh Kumar /AW-1 regarding the journey and the incident is based
upon information received by him. It is further contended that the
ticket issued shortly before the departure of the train does not establish
Signature Not Verified
FAO 3/2024 Page 2 of 6

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

that the deceased actually boarded the train and that the discovery of
the body after a gap of almost 20 hours, despite several trains having
passed the location, renders the claim of accidental fall doubtful.
Reliance is also placed upon the discrepancy between the jamatalashi
and the RPF record regarding recovery of the ticket.
6. Coming first to the question of bona fide passenger status, the
material on record clearly establishes that railway ticket No. UAB-
90628860 was recovered from the person of the deceased during
jamatalashi . The Fard - Jamatalashi specifically records the said
railway ticket amongst the articles recovered from the deceased. The
ticket was thereafter verified from the Railway records and was found
to have been issued from New Delhi to Ludhiana for one adult
passenger for the journey dated 23.07.2019. The ticket, therefore, is
not merely a document produced by the claimants after the occurrence
as its particulars stand independently corroborated by the Railways’
own records.
The aforesaid evidence has to be considered in the light of
1 2
“ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” and “ Lata v. Union of India ” . In the
present case, that burden stands discharged by something more than a
mere assertion of travel, as there is an actual railway ticket recovered
from the deceased.
7. The reliance placed by the Tribunal upon the Rapat - Roznamcha
to discard the aforesaid recovery is misplaced. The Roznamcha records
what was allegedly communicated by the GRP official regarding any

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 3/2024 Page 3 of 6

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

non-recovery, whereas the Fard - Jamatalashi is the contemporaneous
record of the physical search and specifically records the recovery of
the ticket from the deceased. The discrepancy may be noticed, but it
cannot result in the formal recovery being discarded, particularly when
the very ticket so recovered was subsequently verified. Once the
recovery and verification of the ticket stand established, the mere
contents of the Roznamcha cannot be permitted to erase that positive
documentary evidence.
8. The next question is whether the death of the deceased resulted
from an “untoward incident”. The deceased was found dead alongside
the railway track at Km. No.348/13-15 between Chawapayal and
Doraha . The Station Master’s Memo records receipt of information
regarding two dead bodies lying outside the Up line at the aforesaid
location. The doctor, during the post-mortem specifically noted that
the “injuries were smeared with black greasy material”, “which occurs
in a railway accident”, and opined the cause of death to be head injury.
9. The Tribunal principally doubted the case of accidental fall
because the body was noticed only on the following morning and
several trains had passed through the section in the intervening period.
At this stage it is apposite to note thatin “ Sh. Surendra Prasad Verma
3
v. Union of India ” , this Court has held that mere delay in the recovery
or discovery of the body cannot be treated as a determinative
circumstance to disbelieve an accidental fall, particularly in the
absence of cogent evidence suggesting otherwise. The same principle
has been consistently applied by the Co-ordinate benches as well as by

3
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2917
Signature Not Verified
FAO 3/2024 Page 4 of 6

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

this Court.
The principle squarely applies here. The fact that other trains
passed through the section establishes only that there was railway
traffic during the intervening period, it does not establish that the body
was necessarily visible to each passing train, nor does it establish
when the body came to rest at the location. The delayed discovery,
therefore, remains a circumstance of uncertainty and cannot be
converted into positive evidence that the deceased was “run over” by
some unidentified train later in the morning.
10. Additionally, neither the DRM enquiry discloses any eyewitness
to such an occurrence nor does the post-mortem report opine that the
injuries were “inconsistent” with a fall from a moving train, rather, it
specifically records the “characteristic of a railway accident”.
11. The evidence, when viewed cumulatively, therefore establishes
the occurrence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
The deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a verified ticket
for the relevant journey, his dead body was found alongside the
railway track at the concerned railway section and the medical
evidence records ante-mortem injuries associated by the doctor with a
“railway accident”. As held in “ Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
4
Kumar ” , the expression “untoward incident” is to be understood in
the context of the beneficial statutory scheme, and the liability under
Section 124-A is a statutory no-fault liability subject to the exceptions
contained therein.
12. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and

4
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 3/2024 Page 5 of 6

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

the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to
assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant 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 18.09.2026.
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
AUGUST 31, 2026
na



Signature Not Verified
FAO 3/2024 Page 6 of 6

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