Reshma vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25.04.2026
Pronounced on : 06.05.2026
Uploaded on : 06.05.2026

+ FAO 25/2022

RESHMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. RajanSood, Ms. Ashima Sood,
Ms. MeghaSood, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC for UOI with
Mr. SiddharthShekhar,Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 6674/2022 (delay of 598 days in filing the appeal)
1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 598 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of the
judgment dated 20.12.2019, the appellant was unable to file the appeal
within the prescribed time. It is further submitted that the appellant belongs
to an economically weaker section, anddue to paucity of funds, was unable
to get in contact with a counsel and obtain timely legal advice.
1
3. It is noteworthy that in Mohsina vs. Union of India , a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal, taking

1
(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003
Signature Not Verified
FAO 25/2022 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:06.05.2026
19:50:25

into account the weak economic condition of the appellant/ claimant.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and
guided by the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision as well as the
beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court finds that the
appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the
present appeal.
5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 598 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
FAO 25/2022

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
ClaimsTribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 20.12.2019, passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi , in Claim
Application No. OA (IIu) No. GZB/182/2016 titled as “ Ms. Reshma vs.
Union of India” .
2. Vide the judgment dated 24.05.2019, the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), while deciding the
claim application, held the appellant to be a bona fide passenger, however,
dismissed the claim on the ground that the injuries sustained did not fall
within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
The review application preferred by the appellant against the said order was
thereafter dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi .
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that
on 05.12.2015, one Ms. Reshma was travelling from Kashipur to Pipalsana
Signature Not Verified
FAO 25/2022 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:06.05.2026
19:50:25

by the Kashipur - Moradabad Passenger Train, on the strength of a valid
journey ticket. It is stated that, during the course of the said journey, while
alighting at the Pipalsana Railway Station, she accidentally fell down from
the train and sustained grievous injuries, including amputation of her left leg.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the Tribunal, having returned a finding that the appellant
was a bona fide passenger, erred in denying compensation on an erroneous
understanding of the expression “untoward incident”. It is submitted that the
contemporaneous record, including the station diary entry dated 05.12.2015,
clearly records that a lady passenger fell from Train No. 55312 shortly after
its departure from Pipalsana and was thereafter shifted to the hospital. It is
further contended that the Tribunal failed to accord due weight to the said
contemporaneous record as well as the consistent testimony of the appellant,
and instead placed reliance on the DRM inquiry officials, which does not
conclusively establish the manner of the occurrence. It is urged that the
finding of the Tribunal that the act of de-boarding a train constitutes a “self-
inflicted injury” is contrary to the settled position of law.The nature of
injuries, as borne out from the medical record and the disability certificate
issued by the competent authority, recording below-knee amputation with
55% permanent disability, is also consistent with a fall from a moving train
and supports the occurrence of a railway accident during the course of the
journey.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment and submits that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the
evidence on record and concluded that the appellant sustained injuries while
attempting to de-board a moving train and, therefore, the case falls within
Signature Not Verified
FAO 25/2022 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:06.05.2026
19:50:25

the exception to Section 124-A of the Act. It is contended that the Tribunal
rightly relied upon the DRM report and the statements of the Loco Pilot and
Guard to conclude that the incident was not an “untoward incident”.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and has
perused the material on record.
7. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the injuries
sustained by the appellant were on account of an “untoward incident” within
the meaning of the Act.
8. A perusal of the record indicates that the occurrence of the appellant
falling from the train stands duly established. The station diary entry dated
05.12.2015, recorded in the ordinary course of official duty, notes that after
the departure of Train No. 55312 from Pipalsana , a lady passenger, aged
about 35-40 years, fell from the train while de-boarding and sustained
serious injuries, and was immediately shifted to the hospital. The said
contemporaneous record, recorded in close proximity to the incident, lends
due corroboration to the version of the appellant as set out in the claim
application and her testimony as AW-1, which has remained consistent and
unshaken.
9. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the statements of Sh. Satish
Kumar , Loco Pilot and Sh. Nitish Kumar , Guard of the train,does not
displace the aforesaid position. The said statements merely indicate that no
such incident came to their notice during the course of journey and are in the
nature of negative evidence, which cannot override the contemporaneous
station record acknowledging that a passenger “fell from the train”
immediately after its departure.
10. The only ground on which the claim has been rejected is that the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 25/2022 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:06.05.2026
19:50:25

appellant attempted to de-board a moving train and, therefore, the injuries
are to be treated as “self-inflicted”. In this regard, it is well settled, as
2
observed in Union of India vs. Rina Devi , that death or injury occurring in
the course of boarding or de-boarding a train would fall within the ambit of
an “untoward incident”. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal,that de-
boarding a moving train would ipso facto amount to a self-inflicted injury, is
thus, contrary to the settled position of law.Once the fall of the appellant
from the train during the course of her journey, stands established, the case
squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under Section
123(c) of the Act.

11. Insofar as the status of the appellant as a bona fide passenger is
concerned, the same already stands decided in her favour, and the journey
ticket bearing No. L-10899281, placed on record, further substantiates the
said finding.
12. It is further well settled that the liability under Section 124-A of the
3
Act is one of strict liability. In Jameela vs. Union of India and Union of
4
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that once an “untoward incident” is established, compensation is payable
irrespective of fault, unless the case falls within the statutory exceptions,
which are to be construed narrowly. In the present case,the exception of
“self-inflicted injury” is not attracted merely on account of the appellant de-
boarding the train, and the appellant is thus, entitled to the relief of
compensation.
13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2019, passed by the

2
(2019) 3 SCC 572
3
(2010) 12 SCC 443
4
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 25/2022 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:06.05.2026
19:50:25

Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi , upholding the order dated
24.05.2019, 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 15.05.2026.
14. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
15. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.



(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 06, 2026
kk

Signature Not Verified
FAO 25/2022 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:06.05.2026
19:50:25