Ravindra Singh & Anr. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 13.08.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
Uploaded on : 01.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010055602026

+ FAO 49/2026

RAVINDRA SINGH & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood & Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, CGSC with
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, 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
08.12.2025passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/DLI/696/2025 titled as “ Sh. Ravindra Singh &Anr. vs.
Union Of India ”.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 31.08.2024, one Vijay Kumar
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)was travelling from
Ghaziabad to Meerut after purchasing a valid railway ticket and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
FAO 49/2026 Page 1 of 6

boarded an unknown passenger train. It is a v e rr e d th atduring the
course of the aforesaid travel, while the train was passing beneath the
Vivekananda Flyover, the deceased accidentally fell from the running
train, sustained serious injuries and died as a result thereof.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the
deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the alleged
incident qualify as an “untoward incident” as defined under the
Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned
judgment, contending that the Tribunal erred in treating non-recovery
of the journey ticket as fatal to the claim and placed reliance on
1
“ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” . It was further contended that the
Tribunal ignored contemporaneous records indicating that the
deceased had fallen from the train and erroneously concluded that the
death was due to a run-over.It was also contended that the affidavit of
AW-1, coupled with the attending circumstances, discharged the initial
burden regarding the deceased being a bona fide passenger.Learned
counsel further submitted that the statutory inquiry relied upon by the
Tribunal was initiated only on 19.08.2025, nearly one year after the
incident, and the report was submitted on 25.09.2025.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no
ticket was recovered. It was contended that the statement of AW-
1/ Ravindra Singh regarding the purchase ofthe journey ticket was not
reliable. It was further submitted that the i njuriesrecorded in the post-

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
FAO 49/2026 Page 2 of 6

mortem report, coupled with the discovery of the deadbody in between
tracks and the conclusions drawn fro m the contemporaneous
report, suggests that the deceased was run over by a train.
6. A perusal of the proceedings would show that it is an admitted
fact that no ticket was recovered at the time of the incident. However,
as per Rina Devi (supra), the law regarding the non-recovery of the
journey ticket iswell settled. The initial burden resting upon the
claimants is only to place on record the relevant facts and
circumstances to establish bona fide travel, whereafter the onus shifts
upon the Railway Administration to rebut the same by leading cogent
evidence.This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in “ Lata
2
v. Union of India ” .
Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
Sh. Ravindra /AW-1, father of the deceased, has categorically deposed
that the deceased had called AW-1 to inform him that he was travelling
from Ghaziabad to Meerut and had purchased a second class journey
ticketfor the same. During the cross-examination, even though AW-1
states that he did not mention the journey ticket to the police, his stand
remains consistent with the material particulars.Owing to the
discrepancy around not informing the police of the journey ticket, the
Tribunal had discarded the testimony of AW-1.
7. However, this court is of theconsideredopinion that the fact that
AW-1 did not inform the police about the journey ticket does not
materially detract from his evidence.The significance of the affidavit
assumes greater importance in view of the law laid down in Rina Devi

2
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
FAO 49/2026 Page 3 of 6

(supra)and Lata (supra), wherein the initial burden on the claimant is
discharged by placing on record an affidavit setting out the relevant
facts. Thus, once AW-1 had specifically stated in his affidavit that the
deceased was carrying a journey ticket, the omission to mention the
same to the police is, at best, a minor discrepancy and cannot, by itself,
discredit his categorical assertion in the affidavit.
8. The next issue that arises for consideration is whether the
deceased died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the
Act. The Tribunal has proceeded substantially on the basis of the
nature of the injuries found during post-mortem, the position of the
dead body between the railway tracks, the trajectory of a person falling
from a running train and the dimensions of the railway coach and
track.
Such an approach, in the view of this court, overlooks the
beneficial character of the statutory scheme, which is intended to
provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and their
dependants. The provisions of the Act, therefore, warrant a purposive
and liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the
legislation.The question, therefore, is not whether a particular injury
pattern or the position in which the body was found can, in isolation,
conclusively establish the precise manner in which the deceased came
to be injured, but whether the material on record, taken as a whole,
establishes that the deceased suffered an accidental fall from a
passenger carrying train.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
FAO 49/2026 Page 4 of 6

9. A gainfulreferencein this regardis placed on the decision of the
3
Coordinate Bench of this Court in “Rajpativ. Union of India” :-
“ 7. No doubt, the body is found in a cut up position, however, it
is not inconceivable that while falling from the train, the
deceased could have got entangled in the steps and the wheels
of the same train in which he was travelling and surely which
type of incidents are not unknown. Therefore, the Tribunal
cannot only on the ground that the body of the deceased was in
a cut up condition hold that the case was a case of run over and
not of falling from a train. ”

The aforesaid decision makes it clear that the physical condition
or location of the body cannot, by itself, furnish an inflexible test for
determining whether the deceased had fallen from a train or had been
run over. The same principle squarely applies here. The Tribunal has
treated the complete amputation of the left leg at the hip joint and the
location of the body between the tracks as determinative, whereas
these circumstances, though relevant, cannot by themselves
conclusively exclude an accidental fall from a running train.
Additionally, the fact that the body was found between the railway
tracks also cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as
conclusive of a run-over.
12. Furthermore, the Railway Administration has also not produced
any eyewitness account or any contemporaneous statement of the
driver or guard of a train to establish that the deceased was run over
while trespassing on the railway track. The DRM report, on which
reliance has been placed, was initiated only on 19.08.2025 and
submitted on 25.09.2025, i.e., nearly a year after the incident.

3
2014 SCC Online Del 2540
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
FAO 49/2026 Page 5 of 6

13. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, the deceased is held to
have been a bona fide passenger and the occurrence is held to fall
within the ambit of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the
Act.
14. Accordingly, 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

21.09.2026.
15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
16. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER01, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
FAO 49/2026 Page 6 of 6