Sunaina Devi vs Union Of India & Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25.08.2026
Pronounced on : 03.09.2026
Uploaded on : 03.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC012018202014

+ FAO 322/2014

SUNAINA DEVI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.K. Gupta, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC
for UOI with Mr. Kautilya
Birat, GP

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
21.01.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/463/2011.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant before the Tribunal was
that on 17.04.2011, her husband, Sh. Shambhu Manjhi (hereinafter
referred to as the “deceased”), was travelling from Patna Junction to
New Delhi by Train No.4055 ( Brahmaputra Mail), on the strength of a
Signature Not Verified
FAO 322/2014 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

second-class superfast ticket. It was stated that there was heavy rush in
the general compartment and the deceased was standing near the gate.
According to the appellant, while the train was running near
Sachiwalaya Halt, there was a sudden jerk and, due to the rush and
jostling of passengers, the deceased fell from the running train and
sustained injuries. He was thereafter taken to PMCH, Patna , where he
succumbed to his injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger and the journey ticket was found on the
person of the deceased and the same was also referred to in the police
papers. It was further submitted that the statement of Rajendra Manjhi ,
the inquest report, FIR and other documents supported the appellant’s
case that the deceased had suffered injuries in connection with a fall
from the train. Learned counsel contended that the mere fact that the
appellant was not an eyewitness to the occurrence could not be held
against her and that the material on record ought to have been
considered keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legislation.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in “ Union
1
of India v. Rina Devi ” .
4. Percontra , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the appellant had failed to establish that the deceased was travelling by
Train No.4055 on the relevant date. It was pointed out that the ticket
relied upon by the appellant was purchased at 17:47 hrs. on
17.04.2011, whereas Train No.4055 had already left Patna Junction at
13:18 hrs. on the same day, as per the TSR record. It was further

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 322/2014 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

submitted that the appellant, despite not accompanying the deceased,
had given specific details of his alleged journey in her affidavit,
without disclosing the source of such details and also referred to the
statement of Rajendra Manjhi , the deceased’s cousin brother, recorded
before the police officers of Pirbahore P.S., Patna on 18.04.2011, and
submitted that the said statement did not establish that the deceased
had boarded Train No.4055 or the manner in which he allegedly fell
from the train. It was also pointed out that while the appellant stated
that the deceased died at PMCH on 17.04.2011, Rajendra ’s statement
records his death on 18.04.2011, and no PMCH admission or death
certificate was produced.
5. It is trite law that mere non-recovery of a railway ticket from an
injured or deceased passenger cannot, by itself, be determinative of his
status as a bona fide passenger. At the same time, the initial burden of
establishing the foundational facts of the journey lies upon the
claimant. In the present case, the appellant relies principally upon the
journey ticket said to have been recovered from the deceased. The
difficulty, however, is not one of mere non-recovery of a ticket. The
ticket relied upon by the appellant itself records the time of purchase
as 17:47 hrs. on 17.04.2011. On the other hand, the report of the
Station Manager, Patna Junction dated 21.08.2012 records, on the
basis of the TSR record, that Train No.4055 had left Patna Junction at
13:18 hrs. on the same day. Thus, the ticket relied upon by the
appellant was purchased more than four hours after the train in which
the deceased is alleged to have travelled had already departed from
Patna Junction. This circumstance goes to the root of the appellant’s
Signature Not Verified
FAO 322/2014 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

case and there is consequently no satisfactory basis on record to
conclude that the deceased had boarded the said train on the strength
of the ticket relied upon by the appellant.
6. There is also an inconsistency regarding the circumstances
immediately following the alleged fall. The appellant stated that the
deceased was taken to PMCH on 17.04.2011 and succumbed to his
injuries during treatment on the same day, whereas, the statement of
the deceased’s cousin brother, Rajendra Manjhi ,recorded before the
police officers of Pirbahore P.S., Patna however, records his death at
PMCH on 18.04.2011. The Tribunal further noticed that no admission
or death certificate from PMCH had been produced to establish the
alleged treatment there from 17.04.2011 to 18.04.2011.
7. Here, the issue is not simply whether the deceased was found
carrying a ticket; the issue is whether he was a bona fide passenger of
the train in question, as specifically pleaded. On the material available,
the appellant has failed to discharge the initial burden in this regard. A
similar approach was adopted by this Court in “ Mohammad Azam v.
2
Union of India ” , where the Court distinguished between mere non-
recovery of a ticket and a case where the ticket relied upon was
demonstrably issued after the occurrence.
8. Once the aforesaid foundational requirement remains
unestablished, the claim for compensation under Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989 cannot be sustained. The question whether the
alleged fall would otherwise fall within the expression “untoward
incident” does not alter this conclusion, as the statutory claim itself is

2
2026 SCC OnLine Del 6413
Signature Not Verified
FAO 322/2014 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49

dependent upon the person being a bona fide passenger.
9. Accordingly, in light of the reasoning given in the impugned
order and the submissions put forth, I do not find force in the merits of
the contentions and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
na



Signature Not Verified
FAO 322/2014 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49