Surjeet Kaur & Ors. vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 06.05.2026
Pronounced on : 11.05.2026
Uploaded on : 11.05.2026

+ FAO 42/2022

SURJEET KAUR & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPC for UOI

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 03.03.2020, passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/261/2019.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
primarily on the ground that the incident in question was not an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act”) and consequently, did not return any finding on the issue of
bona fide travel.
3. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the claim application are that
Tara Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was a regular
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04

commuter travelling between Rohtak and Delhi for business purposes and
was holding a valid Monthly Season Ticket (MST) for travel between
Rohtak and Delhi. It was alleged that on 24.02.2016, during the period when
railway operations stood disrupted owing to the Jat Reservation agitation,
the deceased had reached Rohtak Railway Station for travelling towards
Delhi . It was the appellants’ case that he tried to board the train but after
some time, due to heavy rush in the train, he accidentally fell from the train
in the Rohtak yard itself, resulting in his death.
4. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim application primarily on
the ground that no passenger train movement was shown at the relevant time
and therefore the appellants had failed to establish that the death occurred in
an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act”).
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that
the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the
contemporaneous material on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal
selectively relied upon isolated portions of the DRM/RPF inquiry while
completely ignoring the GRP proceedings, inquest report, jamatalashi
proceedings and the recovery and verification of valid MST and other
surrounding circumstances consistently establishing that the deceased had
suffered a railway accident while undertaking a railway journey towards
Delhi. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly treated
absence of a scheduled passenger train entry in the TSR Register as
conclusive proof against the appellants.
6. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04

impugned judgment and submits that there was no eyewitness to the
occurrence and the inquiry proceedings concluded that the deceased became
victim of his own negligence. It is argued that since no passenger train
movement was reflected in the TSR Register, the appellants failed to prove
occurrence of an untoward incident.
7. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. The first question which requires consideration is whether the death of
the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of
Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of Act.

9. The Tribunal answered the aforesaid issue against the appellants
primarily on the reasoning that no scheduled passenger train movement was
reflected in the TSR Register and therefore the version projected by the
appellants regarding accidental fall from train could not be accepted. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid approach is contrary to the
material available on record and proceeds upon an unduly narrow
appreciation of evidence.
10. The contemporaneous official record itself establishes that the
occurrence was a railway accident connected with railway movement. The
Station Master memo dated 24.02.2016 records that information had been
received from unknown passenger, that one dead body was lying near Line
No.03 between Platform Nos.02 and 03 near the Train Lighting Office at
Rohtak Railway Station. The inquest report prepared by GRP, Rohtak ,
records the place of occurrence as “PF No.2, Line No.3, near Train Lighting
Office, Railway Station, Rohtak ”. The said report further records that the
cause of death was injuries suffered in a railway accident and the post-
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04

mortem specifically notes that after examination, “possibility of railway
track accident cannot be ruled out as such”. Significantly, the opinion
recorded therein further states that “none is to be blamed”. Thus, the
contemporaneous GRP proceedings themselves do not support the theory
that the deceased was “run over” while crossing the track as a trespasser.
11. The statements recorded during the inquest proceedings. consistently
support the occurrence having taken place during the course of railway
travel. AW-2, Gurmeet Singh , son of the deceased, stated that owing to the
Jat Reservation agitation, railway operations had remained disrupted and the
deceased had accordingly remained stranded in Delhi for several days. He
further stated that on 24.02.2016, the deceased intended to proceed towards
Delhi after receiving information that some train movement towards Delhi
may operate during the night and accordingly reached Rohtak Railway
Station. Balbir Singh, elder son of the deceased, specifically stated that he
himself had accompanied the deceased to Rohtak Railway Station for
travelling towards Delhi and several passengers were present at Platform
No.02 awaiting train movement. He further stated that after he briefly
stepped outside the station on account of a phone call, passengers informed
him that one person had fallen after coming out of the train due to push.
Similarly, AW-1, Surjeet Kaur , widow of the deceased, also consistently
stated that the deceased had left home after informing the family that some
special train movement towards Delhi was expected during the night.
12. The Tribunal, however, failed to appreciate the cumulative evidentiary
effect of the said contemporaneous material and instead dissected isolated
discrepancies while ignoring the consistent core narrative emerging from all
the statements.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04

13. Even the DRM/RPF inquiry report relied upon by the Railways itself
records movement of diesel engine No.12692 through the relevant portion of
the station at the relevant time. Thus, the very premise adopted by the
learned Tribunal that there was “no train movement” during the relevant
period stands contradicted from the railway’s own record. The evidence
consistently shows that owing to the agitation and disruption prevailing
during the relevant period, passengers were waiting for irregular/special
movement towards Delhi . Therefore, absence of a scheduled passenger train
entry could not have been treated as conclusive proof negativing occurrence
of a railway accident.

14. What is further important is that neither the DRM inquiry nor the
evidence led by the respondent establishes through any direct evidence that
the deceased was crossing the railway line or trespassing in the yard area. No
eyewitness to such alleged trespass was produced. Neither any loco pilot nor
any railway official stated that the deceased was seen walking negligently
upon the railway line. The conclusion recorded in the inquiry that the
deceased became victim of his “own negligence” is thus purely inferential
and unsupported by direct evidence.
15. As per the law laid down in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
1 2
Kumar & Ors. and Jameela v. Union of India , even negligence or
carelessness while boarding/deboarding a train would not amount to a
criminal act so as to disentitle the claimant from seeking compensation. In
the present case, however, there is absolutely no material whatsoever to
bring the occurrence within any of the statutory exceptions contemplated

1
(2008) 9 SCC 527
2
(2010) 12 SCC 443
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04

under the proviso to Section 124-A such as suicide, self-inflicted injury,
intoxication, insanity or commission of any criminal act. The railway
authorities merely proceeded upon a speculative assumption that the
deceased may have suffered injuries due to his own negligence. Such
speculative inference could not have been made basis to deny statutory
compensation.
16. In view of the aforesaid material, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the appellants successfully established that the death of the
deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section
123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Act.

17. Once the occurrence is held to be an untoward incident, the next issue
which arises for consideration is whether the deceased was a bona fide
passenger at the time of the incident.
18. The answer to the aforesaid issue again emerges from the
contemporaneous official record itself. During the jamatalashi proceedings
conducted by GRP Rohtak , a valid MST/pass bearing No.5950625, valid
from 20.01.2016 till 19.04.2016, for travel between Rohtak Jn. and Delhi Jn.
was recovered from the person of the deceased along with his identity
documents and other belongings. The said MST was subsequently verified
by the railway authorities themselves and found genuine.
19. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that once a valid journey authority
stood recovered from the person of the deceased and the surrounding
circumstances consistently established intended railway travel, the burden
shifted upon the Railways to rebut the same. (Ref: Union of India v. Rina
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04

3
Devi ). Except for conjectural suggestions regarding negligence, no material
whatsoever was produced by the respondent to disprove bona fide travel.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues are therefore
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2020 is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess
the amount of compensation payable to the appellants 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 21.05.2026.

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


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2026
kk






3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 42/2022 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:11.05.2026
18:27:04