Raj Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 24.09.2026
Pronounced on : 29.10.2026
Uploaded on : 29.10.2026

# CNR No.DLHC010266212023

+ FAO 167/2023

RAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Piyush Bansal, SPC with
Mr. Rishab Dubey and Ms.
Ruchita Srivastava, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants seek to assail the
judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in
Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/GZB/217/2018.
2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellants before the
Tribunal was that Kushal Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”), son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

No. 3, was travelling from Dadri to Aligarh on 11.11.2017 by a
passenger train after purchasing a valid journey ticket. It was stated
that, during the course of the said journey, he accidentally fell from the
train near Khurja Railway Station and fatal injuries.
3. The claim was contested by the respondent/Railways withthe
principal objection being that no journey ticket had been recovered
from the body of the deceased and, therefore, his status as a bona fide
passenger had not been established. It was further contended that the
body was found lying on the UP main line, whereas the deceased was
stated to have been travelling in the opposite direction. Reliance was
also placed upon the nature of the injuries and the post-mortem report
to contend that the deceased had been run over by an unidentified
train.
4. By way of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal accepted the
respondent’s contentions and dismissed the claim. The Tribunal placed
considerable reliance on the fact that the body was noticed on the
morning of 12.11.2017, although the deceased was stated to have
commenced his journey on the previous evening. The Tribunal further
disbelieved the testimony of AW-2/ Rahul , who claimed to have
accompanied the deceased to Dadri Railway Station, observing that his
presence had not been disclosed in the original claim application and
he had not informed either the family or the police that the deceased
had purchased a ticket in his presence.
5. Before this Court, Mr. Sood , learned counsel for the appellants
assails the impugned judgmentcontending that the absence of the
journey ticket cannot, in view of the settled law, defeat the claim,
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

particularly when the appellants averred that the deceased had
purchased a ticket and that his belongings were lost in the incident.
Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has treated the
location of the body and the nature of the injuries as conclusive proof
of a run-over incident and without any independent evidence
establishing the precise manner in which the deceased came to be on
the railway track, the same cannot be sustained.
6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellants have failed to establish either that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger or that his death occurred in an “untoward incident”
within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referredto
as the “Act”). It is urged that the testimony of Rahul was rightly
discarded as an afterthought and that the medical and railway records
lend support to the possibility that the deceased was run over by an
unidentified train.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and going through
the material placed on record, the questions which arise for
consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at
the time of the incident and whether his death is attributable to an
“untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
8. At the outset, it is necessary to take note that the mere non-
recovery of a journey ticket does not, by itself, conclude the question
of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In “ Union of India
1
v. Rina Devi ” , the Supreme Court explained that the initial burden
upon the claimant is to establish the relevant facts and circumstances

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

indicating bona fide travel. Once such foundational facts are placed on
record, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim on the basis
of the material available. The question is required to be examined on
the attending circumstances and on the standard of preponderance of
probabilities, and not by treating the absence of a ticket as an
automatic disqualification.
The aforesaid principle has to be applied to the facts of the
present case. The appellants’ case, as set out in the claim application,
is that the journey ticket was lost in the incident. AW-1/ Raj Kumar ,
the father of the deceased, reiterated this version in his testimony. The
absence of the ticket from the articles recovered from the body,
therefore, cannot be elevated into conclusive proof that the deceased
had not undertaken the journey.The testimony of AW-2/ Rahul also
requires consideration in its proper perspective. He stated he had
accompanied the deceased to Dadri Railway Station and during cross-
examination, he stated that he had not actually seen the deceased
purchasing the ticket and that he had not informed the appellants or the
police about the alleged purchase. The question whether the deceased
was a bona fide passenger cannot be answered exclusively by
accepting or rejecting one part of his deposition. The claim must be
considered on the totality of the evidence, including the consistent
stand of the father of the deceased and the contemporaneous records
relating to the recovery of the body.
9. Pertinently, the principle governing the assessment of bona fide
passenger status has also been reiterated in “ Lata v. Union of
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

2
India ” and “ Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of
3
India ” . The Tribunal’s approach, insofar as it treats the absence of the
ticket and the doubts surrounding AW-2 as sufficient to non-suit the
appellants without assessing the complete circumstances, cannot be
upheld and is liable to be set aside.
10. The next question is whether the death of the deceased falls
within the expression “untoward incident” as defined under Section
123(c) of the Act. Section 123(c), inter alia, includes within the
expression the “accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers”. Section 124-A provides for compensation where
a passenger dies or suffers injury as a result of an “untoward incident”,
irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or
default on the part of the Railway Administration. The liability is thus
founded on the principle of no-fault liability, subject to the exceptions
specifically enumerated in the proviso to Section 124-A.
11. The material placed before the Tribunal records that, on
12.11.2017, the Loco Pilot of train UP-GZB informed the Deputy
Station Superintendent, Khurja , about the presence of a dead body at
KM 1368/17-19 on the UP main line. The information was transmitted
to the GRP, Khurja , and the relevant entry was made in the General
Diary. The ensuing panchnama records the body lying on the railway
line and notes the injuries sustained by the deceased.These records
establish that the deceased was found dead on the railway track and
had sustained fatal injuries consistent with a forceful impact. They do

2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
3
2026 INSC 1056
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

notrecord any eyewitness account of the deceased being run over while
crossing the track or otherwise being present there for a purpose
unconnected with a train journey. The conclusion that the deceased
must have been run over by an unidentified train is, therefore, an
inference drawn from the location of the body and the nature of the
injuries. Such an inference cannot be treated as conclusive merely
because the precise train involved or the mechanics of the accident
could not be established.
12. The Tribunal has also relied upon the fact that the deceased was
allegedly travelling in the down direction, whereas the body was found
on the UP main line. In the absence of evidence demonstrating the
precise sequence of events, the location at which the body was
ultimately found cannot conclusively determine the manner in which
the deceased sustained the fatal injuries. Equally, the post-mortem
report records the time since death as approximately half a day. The
Tribunal inferred from this estimate that the death might have occurred
in the morning of 12.11.2017 and not during the previous evening, as
claimed by the appellants. However, an estimate of the time since
death, without any cogent medical opinion, cannot be sufficient to
establish the exact time or manner of the occurrence.
13. The Tribunal has further considered it improbable that a body
would remain unnoticed on a busy railway line throughout the night.
This reasoning, too, rests upon an assumption as to when the deceased
died and when the body came to rest at the place of recovery. The first
recorded information about the body was received in the morning from
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

4
a Loco Pilot. In “ Surendra Prasad Verma & Anr. v. Union of India ”
this Court cautioned against drawing conclusive inferences from the
delayed discovery or location of a body in the absence of cogent
supporting evidence.
5
14. This Court in “ Dharmvir v. Union of India ” , while examining a
claim arising from a railway accident, observed that the precise
manner in which such an accident occurred may not always be capable
of direct proof. The Court is required to consider the evidence and
surrounding circumstances, rather than insist upon an eyewitness
6
account of the fall. Likewise, in “ Reshma & Ors. v. Union of India ” ,
this Court considered the statutory scheme governing railway accident
claims and reiterated that the claim must be tested against the evidence
on record and the principles applicable to no-fault liability.
15. The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and its provisions are
required to be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of
providing compensation to victims of railway accidents and their
dependants. The principle of no-fault liability under Section 124-A of
the Act does not require a claimant to establish the precise mechanics
of an accident where the material on recordestablishes the occurrence
on a preponderance of probabilities.
16. 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 and direct the authorities concerned to disburse

4
(2014) SCC OnLine Del 2917
5
FAO 28/2016, decided on 17.04.2018
6
FAO 224/2019, decided on 28.11.2023
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

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 24.02.2027.
17. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
18. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 29, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 167/2023 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25