Smt. Raj Kumari & Ors. vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 23.09.2026
Pronounced on : 28.10.2026
Uploaded on : 28.10.2026

+ FAO 394/2024

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

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC

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 10.07.2024 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/349/2023.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that
on 10.12.2022, Rakesh Chandra (hereinafter, the “deceased”), aged about 60
years, was travelling from Sidhirampur Railway Station to Bilhaur Railway
Station by an EMU train after purchasing a valid railway ticket. It was
pleaded that, during the course of the said travel, the deceased accidentally
fellfrom the train and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The
appellants, being the wife, son and daughters of the deceased, thereafter
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

approached the Tribunal seeking compensation.
3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application by holding that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did not result from
an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). In arriving at this conclusion, the
Tribunal relied upon the DRM report and the railway records, including the
statements attributed to the Loco Pilot and Guard of Train No. 05344. It
inferred that the deceased was hit by a train while crossing the railway line
and had not been travelling on the train in question. The Tribunal also relied
upon the discrepancies in the testimonies of the son of the deceased, AW-
1/ Kishan Kumar and AW-2/ Manoj Kumar , particularly concerning the time
at which the deceased was allegedly put on the train.
4. Before this Court, Mr. Sood , learned counsel for the appellants
contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in its entirety. He
submitted that AW-1 specifically stated that the deceased had purchased a
railway ticket and boarded the train, while AW-2 supported the case
regarding the purchase of the ticket and boarding. It is further contended that
the non-recovery of the ticket could not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Learned counsel submits that
the railway records establish that the deceased was found dead on the
railway track, but do not establish that he was crossing the railway line when
he came into contact with a train.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent, while defending
the impugned judgment, submitted that the version set up by the appellants
is not borne out by the contemporaneous railway and police records.
Particular reliance is placed upon the discrepancies between the testimonies
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

of AW-1 and AW-2, the time recorded in the railway records regarding the
discovery of the body, and the statement attributed to AW-2 before the
police. It is contended that the Tribunal rightly concluded that the appellants
had failed to establish either the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger
or the occurrence of an “untoward incident”.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record, including the impugned judgment, the depositions of AW-1 and
AW-2, the Station Superintendent’s memo, the Panchnama , the post-
mortem report and the DRM report.
7. The first question which arises for consideration is whether, in case of
non-recovery of a journey ticket, the deceased could be accorded with the
status of a bona fide passenger. The legal position in this regard stands
1
settled by the Supreme Court in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” , wherein it
was held that the initial burden upon a claimant to establish bona fide
passenger status is not onerous and that the attending circumstances must be
considered in determining whether such burden stands discharged. The
principle has also been recently reiterated in “ Lata v. Union of
2 3
India ” and “ Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India ” .
In the present case, AW-1/ Kishan Kumar , son of the deceased,
categorically stated that his father had purchased a ticket for travelling from
Sidhirampur to Bilhaur and had boarded the train. He further stated that the
ticket was lost in the incident. AW-2/ Manoj Kumar , son-in-law of the
deceased, also deposed that he had witnessed the purchase of the ticket and
the boarding of the train. The fact that the ticket was not recovered,

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
3
2026 INSC 1056
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

therefore, cannot be treated as conclusive against the appellants. Applying
the principle laid down in “ Rina Devi ” ( supra ), the assertion that the
deceased had purchased a ticket and boarded the train, supported by the
testimony of AW-2 on that aspect, was required to be considered along with
the surrounding circumstances. The discrepancies in the evidence, discussed
hereafter, however, do not justify rejecting the deceased’s status as a bona
fide passenger merely on account of non-recovery of the ticket.
8. The next question is whether the death of the deceased resulted from
an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. The
appellants’ case is that the deceased fell while boarding the train at
Sidhirampur Railway Station due to the rush of passengers. The Tribunal, on
the other hand, inferred that the deceased was crossing the railway line and
was hit by a train. The question, therefore, is whether the material relied
upon by the Tribunal was sufficient to sustain the latter conclusion.
9. A perusal of the record would show that on 10.12.2022, Sher Singh ,
the Keyman of Gang No. 3, informed the Station Master, Kamalganj , at
about 7:05 a.m. that the body of the deceased was lying on the track between
kilometre 116/19 and 116/20. The General Diary Entry No. 017 of Police
Station, Kamalganj records a letter attributed to AW-2 stating that the
deceased had died after being hit by a train at about 6:00 a.m. near Pole No.
116/19, Sidhirampur . The Panchnama also records that AW-2 was one of
the persons who first informed the authorities about the death and was a
Panch witness. The Panchas opined that the deceased had been hit by a
train. These records establish the discovery of the body on the railway track
and the fact that the death involved a train. However, the conclusion that the
deceased wascrossing the railway line does not follow from these
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

circumstances alone.The location at which the body was found and the
opinion recorded in the Panchnama are relevant circumstances, nevertheless,
they are not based on any eye witness account and must be assessed along
with the remaining material.
10. The Tribunal also relied upon the statements attributed to Surendra
Singh , Loco Pilot of Train No. 05344, and Dalbir Singh , its Guard,
according to which the train arrived at Sidhirampur Halt at 5:59 p.m. and
departed towards Khudaganj at 6:08 p.m. These statements form part of the
material relied upon in the railway inquiry and were not supported by the
examination of the Loco Pilot or the Guard before the Tribunal. Even
otherwise, the said statements make no reference to the issue at hand that the
deceased was allegedly crossing the railway line at the time of the incident.
11. This Court has also considered the discrepancies in the testimony of
AW-2/ Manoj Kumar . AW-1 stated in his cross-examination that he had
asked AW-2 a day before the incident to put the deceased on the morning
passenger train going towards Kanpur . AW-2, however, stated that he had
not received any such call. Further, AW-2 stated that he had put the
deceased on the train at about 7:20 a.m., whereas the railway record shows
that the Keyman had informed the Station Master at about 7:05 a.m. that the
body was lying on the track. The letter attributed to AW-2 in the police
record, which refers to the deceased having been hit by a train at about 6:00
a.m., also requires consideration alongside his deposition. These
discrepanciesthoughcannot be brushed aside as inconsequentialhowever, at
the same time, they do not, without supporting evidence, establish the
Tribunal’s alternative conclusion that the deceased was crossing the railway
line. The reliability of AW-2’s version and the inference to be drawn from
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

the contemporaneous records must be assessed separately from the question
whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident”.
12. A similar approach was adopted by this Court in “ Rajpati v. Union of
4
India ” , wherein it was observed that the condition in which a body is found
cannot, by itself, rule out the possibility that the deceased had fallen from a
moving train and thereafter come into contact with its steps or wheels.
5
In “ Smt. Pinki & Ors. v. Union of India ” , this Court also examined the
limits of drawing an inference that the deceased was crossing the railway
tracks merely from the location of the body and the injuries recorded in the
post-mortem report. The principle emerging from these decisions is that the
manner of occurrence must be determined from the entire material on record
and not from an isolated circumstance.
13. In the present case, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the deceased was
crossing the railway line rests substantially upon an inference drawn from
the location of the body, the Panchnama and the railway inquiry material.
The contemporaneous records do not, however, contain direct evidence
establishing that the deceased had entered the railway line for the purpose of
crossing it. Nor do the statements attributed to the Loco Pilot and Guard,
read with the timings recorded in the other documents, sufficiently resolve
the circumstances in which the deceased sustained the fatal injuries.
14. It is also material that the DRM report was relied upon as a principal
basis for rejecting the claim. The report records the conclusion that the
deceased fell while attempting to board a moving train without a ticket and
was responsible for the occurrence. However, the report’s conclusion

4
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540
5
FAO 166/2023, decided on 30.07.2026
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

regarding the deceased travelling without a ticket runs contrary to the oral
evidence that he had purchased a ticket. Further, the report does not, by
itself, cure the evidentiary gaps concerning the precise manner in which the
incident occurred. Even assuming that the deceased fell while boarding or
deboarding the train, such an accidental fall would still fall within the ambit
of an “untoward incident” in terms of the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in “ Rina Devi ” ( supra ).
15. The Tribunal was required to consider whether, on a cumulative
assessment of the evidence, the occurrence was more consistent with an
accidental fall from a train than with the deceased crossing the railway line.
The discrepancies in AW-2’s testimony are relevant and have been taken
into account. However, those are minor variations and they cannot be used to
substitute one unproved version of the occurrence with another.
16. The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, and the provisions relating
to compensation for railway accidents must be applied in a manner
consistent with their object. Section 124-A provides for compensation on the
principle of no-fault liability, subject to the statutory exceptions. A claimant
is not required to reconstruct every detail of an accident where the material
on record, considered as a whole, establishes on a preponderance of
probabilities that the death resulted from an “untoward incident”.
17. 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 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 03.02.2027.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36

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


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2026
na




Signature Not Verified
FAO 394/2024 Pg. 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:15:36