Nareshi Devi & Ors vs Uoi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 23.09.2026
Pronounced on : 27.10.2026
Uploaded on : 27.10.2026

+ FAO 191/2016

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

versus

UOI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC with Ms.
Vidushi, 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 05.02.2016 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/70/2015.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that,
on 17.02.2015, one Girraj Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”)
along with his wifeand minor son, was travelling from Hazrat Nizamuddin
Railway Station to Gangapur City Railway Station by Train No. 12904,
(Golden Temple Express, also known as Frontier Mail). It was stated that,
owing to heavy rush in the general compartment, when the train was
between Tughlakabad and Faridabad Railway Stations, the deceased, who
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:48:32
FAO 191/2016 1 of 6

was feeling unwell and wanted to vomit, moved towards the gate of the
compartment. While he was vomiting, the train took a sudden jerk, as a
result of which he fell from the running train. The deceased’s wife raised an
alarm and, after the train stopped some distance ahead, got down with her
minor son and reached the spot, where she found the deceased dead.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal accepted that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger, however, while considering whether the death
resulted from an “untoward incident”, the Tribunal relied upon the entries in
the Inquest Report, the Station Master’s Memo, the Form-I Report of
Untoward Incidentand the Station Diary. It was held that the deceased had
either acted negligently by vomiting while standing at the gate despite the
availability of washbasins and toilets, or had jumped from the train due to
his mental state.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the DRM report itself records that the deceased had felt
unwell, gone towards the gate to vomit and fallen from the moving train. It is
submitted that the conclusion in the report regarding negligence cannot be
treated as proof of a deliberate act of self-injury and in this regard, relies on
1
the decision of the Supreme Court in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” .
Learned counsel further contends that the entry attributing a statement
regarding a deliberate jump is not supported by any eyewitness account. It is
also submitted that the Tribunal could not have inferred that the deceased
had jumped from the train on account of his mental state in the absence of
supporting evidence.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:48:32
FAO 191/2016 2 of 6

DRM report and the contemporaneous railway records to submit that the
deceased was himself responsible for the incident. It is contended that the
deceased chose to stand near the gate to vomit despite the availability of
washbasins and toilets in the compartment. It is submitted that the Tribunal
rightly declined to award compensation in view of the statutory exceptions
under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”).
6. Having heard both the parties and going through the material placed
on record, the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger is not in dispute.
The only question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the
material on record supports the Tribunal’s conclusion that the death was not
the result of an accidental fall from a moving train, but was attributable to
conduct falling within the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act
7. Pertinently, the DRM reportrecords that the deceased was travelling in
Train No. 12904 after purchasing a general ticket. It further records that,
while the train was passing through the Tughlakabad section, the deceased
suddenly started feeling unwell, came to the gate of the moving train to
vomit and fell down during that process. The report thereafter attributes the
incident to the deceased’s carelessness and negligence, observing that he
would not have met with the accident had he used the washbasin or toilet
provided in the compartment.The conclusion that the deceased could have
avoided the incident by using the facilities available in the compartment is
an assessment of his conduct and it is not a finding, based on any eyewitness
account, that he deliberately jumped from the train.
8. The Tribunal has also placed considerable reliance upon the entry in
the Form-I of the Report of Untoward Incident, which records that,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:48:32
FAO 191/2016 3 of 6

according to the wife of the deceased, he had jumped from Train No. 12904
due to his mental state. The information was recorded as having been
conveyed by the gate man, Shri Ramshakal Yadav , who had reported the
presence of a dead body between the up and down tracks. The entry does not
record that the gate man had witnessed the deceased jumping from the train
and was only based on hearsay evidence. There was no witness examined on
behalf of the respondent to establish the circumstances in which the alleged
statement was made or to prove that the deceased had, in fact, jumped.The
aforesaid entry cannot be ignored merely because its source has not been
examined, however, it could not have been treated as conclusive proof of a
deliberate jump without examining it alongside the other material.
9. It is true that the subsequent, undated statement of the appellant
contains an explanation that the toilets were locked from inside as someone
was using them. The Tribunal treated this as an improvement and further
observed that the washbasins were available outside the toilets and could
have been used even if the toilet doors were locked. However, even if the
subsequent explanation regarding the toilets is not accepted, the omission
still does not establish that the deceased deliberately jumped from the train.
The Tribunal has treated the absence of an explanation as to why the
deceased did not use the washbasin as a circumstance sufficient to infer
criminal negligence or intentional self-injury and such an inference does not
follow from the omission alone.
10. The legal position regarding the distinction between negligence and
self-inflicted injury stands settled by the Supreme Court in “ Jameela v.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:48:32
FAO 191/2016 4 of 6

2
Union of India ” and “ Rina Devi ” ( supra ). The liability under Section 124-A
is founded on the principle of no-fault liability, subject to the exceptions
expressly provided in the statute. Mere negligence on the part of a passenger
does not, by itself, amount to self-inflicted injury. The exception
contemplates an intentional act, and cannot be invoked merely because the
passenger could have taken greater care to avoid the incident.
11. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, even if the
deceased acted imprudently in standing near the gate while vomiting, such
conduct cannot automatically be equated with an intentional act of self-
injury or a criminal act. However, the fact that another course of action was
available to him does not establish that his fall was deliberate. The statutory
exception cannot be invoked merely on the ground that the deceased failed
to take the precaution which, in hindsight, may have prevented the accident.
12. On a cumulative assessment of the material on record, thus, the
recovery of the journey ticket, the contemporaneous railway records, the
account contained in the DRM report and the absence of direct evidence of a
deliberate jump support the appellants’ case that the deceased suffered an
accidental fall from a moving train. The discrepancy regarding the statement
attributed to the wife of the deceased and the omission concerning the locked
toilets have been considered above. Neither circumstance, in the absence of
further supporting evidence, establishes that the deceased intentionally
caused his own injury or committed a criminal act.
13. In view of the above, 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 appellant in accordance with law

2
(2010) 12 SCC 443
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:48:32
FAO 191/2016 5 of 6

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 01.12.2026.
14. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
15. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.



(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 27, 2026
na



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:48:32
FAO 191/2016 6 of 6