Rohnak Jahan & Ors vs Union Of India
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 07.05.2026
Pronounced on : 12.05.2026
Uploaded on : 12.05.2026
+ FAO 154/2017
ROHNAK JAHAN & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mr. D.
Endlow, Ms. Shivangi Singh,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC for
UOI with Ms. Swati J., Ms. Himanshi
Singh and Ms. Monalisha Pradhan,
Advocates
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 20.12.2016, passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/240/2015.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application primarily on the ground that though the death of the deceased fell
within the ambit of an “untoward incident”, the appellants failed to establish
that he was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act,
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
3. The case set up by the appellants before the Tribunal was that on
06.08.2015, one Ashraf Ali (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), along
with his friend Talib Hussain , was returning from Allahabad to Delhi under
a valid reserved ticket by the Prayagraj Express Train. It was alleged that
after reaching Ghaziabad , the deceased proceeded further towards Old Delhi
and during the course of the said journey, he accidentally fell from the train
near Vivek Vihar Railway Station, resulting in fatal injuries and death.
4. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim petition primarily on the
ground that no valid ticket for travel between Ghaziabad and Delhi was
recovered from the person of the deceased and the DRM/RPF inquiry
concluded that the deceased was crossing the railway line and was not
travelling by train at the relevant time.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that
the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the contemporaneous
material available 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 papers, reservation records, PNR
status and corroborative witness statements consistently establishing that the
deceased had suffered a railway accident while undertaking the said railway
journey. It is further contended that once the journey from Allahabad to
Ghaziabad under a valid reserved ticket stood admitted and verified from
railway records themselves, mere non-recovery of a subsequent journey
ticket could not have been made basis to deny bona fide passenger status.
6. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the
impugned judgment and submits that no eyewitness to the occurrence was
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04
produced and the inquiry proceedings clearly concluded that the deceased
was crossing the railway line and was not travelling by train at the relevant
time.
7. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. So far as the occurrence of an “untoward incident” is concerned, the
Tribunal itself returned a categorical finding that the death of the deceased
had occurred on account of an “untoward incident”. The Tribunal
specifically disbelieved the defence sought to be projected by the respondent
through the Guard, RW-1 and observed that the nature of injuries sustained
by the deceased suggested accidental fall from train. The Tribunal further
observed that in a train consisting of several bogies, it would not be possible
for the Guard to witness every fall occurring from the train and therefore the
version projected by the respondent could not be conclusively accepted.
9. In view of the aforesaid findings already returned by the Tribunal
itself, this Court finds no reason to take a different view on the said aspect.
Significantly, neither any eyewitness to alleged trespass nor any direct
evidence establishing that the deceased was crossing the railway line was
produced by the respondent. The contemporaneous official record including
the Station Master memo, GRP proceedings consistently establish that the
deceased had suffered fatal injuries in a railway accident within railway
premises. The occurrence, therefore, clearly falls within the ambit of an
“untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the
Act.
10. The only surviving issue therefore is whether the deceased was a bona
fide passenger at the time of the incident.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04
11. The Tribunal answered the aforesaid issue against the appellants
primarily on the reasoning that no valid ticket for travel between Ghaziabad
and Old Delhi was recovered from the person of the deceased and therefore
it could not be held that he was travelling by train at the relevant time.
12. The material placed on record clearly establishes that the deceased
had commenced a genuine railway journey from Allahabad towards Delhi
under a valid reserved ticket. The reservation ticket placed on record shows
confirmed reservation in Train No.12417 Prayagraj Express in Sleeper
Coach S-6. The PNR status as well as reservation particulars further
corroborate the said journey undertaken by the deceased along with one
Talib Hussain . Significantly, the respondent never disputed the genuineness
of the said reservation and the journey undertaken by the deceased from
Allahabad to Ghaziabad stood duly verified during inquiry proceedings
themselves.
13. The statements recorded during inquiry proceedings consistently
support the aforesaid journey. Talib Hussain (AW-2) in his deposition,
specifically stated that he along with the deceased had travelled from
Allahabad to Ghaziabad by Prayagraj Express and thereafter both had
deboarded at Ghaziabad . He further stated that in his presence, the deceased
purchased a ticket for his onward journey towards Old Delhi and thereafter
boarded Brahmaputra Express while the witness himself proceeded
separately towards Greater Noida . The said witness was cross-examined at
length, however nothing material could be elicited to discredit the core
version consistently put forth by him.
14. The Tribunal, however, discarded the testimony of AW-2 merely on
conjectural assumptions by observing that it was “unlikely” that a person
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04
who himself intended to leave the station would wait to witness the purchase
of a journey ticket for an onward journey. The Tribunal further proceeded to
observe that since mobile phone and certain belongings of the deceased were
recovered, it was “unlikely” that the onward journey ticket alone could have
been lost during the incident. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
aforesaid findings are entirely speculative and unsupported by evidence on
record. It may also be noted that this aspect of loss of ticket in the course of
an accidental fall has been specifically dealt with by this Court in Jagveeri v.
1
Union of India , the relevant extracts wherefrom are as under:-
“ This Court is of the view that the impugned order has erred in
its reasoning that since a relatively higher object like a cell
phone could still be on the body of the deceased. Rejection of
the claim on this ground is not sustainable because a lighter
object will always fly-off from the pocket if the unfortunate body
is violently tossed about in a gruesome and fatal train accident.
A heavier object like a cell phone being better ensconced,
deeper in the pocket, is likely to stay in the pocket. Besides, the
ticket could have been lost in the efforts of chance good
Samaritans of the Railways or police officials or hospital
authorities trying to ascertain the identity of the injured person
by looking into the contents of his pockets. ”
15. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that once the initial railway journey
undertaken by the deceased stood conclusively established through official
railway records and corroborative witness statements, the burden shifted
upon the Railways to establish circumstances sufficient to dislodge the status
of bona fide passenger.
16. Instead thereof, the entire case of the respondent rests merely upon
1
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 8552
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04
non-recovery of a subsequent ticket between Ghaziabad and Old Delhi .
17. The aforesaid reasoning cannot be sustained in law. The Supreme
2
Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , specifically held that mere absence or
non-recovery of ticket cannot by itself negate bona fide passenger status and
the issue is required to be decided on the basis of attendant facts and
surrounding circumstances. It was further held that once foundational facts
regarding railway travel are shown, the burden shifts upon the Railways.
3
18. Similarly, in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. ,
the Supreme Court held that the provisions relating to compensation under
the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and deserve liberal interpretation in
favour of victims of railway accidents.
19. In the present case, the attendant circumstances overwhelmingly
support bona fide railway travel. The deceased was admittedly travelling
under a confirmed reserved ticket from Allahabad , and the reservation
particulars stood verified from railway records themselves. His belongings
including mobile phone, bank cards and other articles were recovered from
the spot, and there is no material whatsoever suggesting that the journey
documents produced by the appellants were fabricated or manipulated.
20. On the contrary, the conclusion recorded in the DRM/RPF inquiry that
the deceased was not travelling by train is itself contradicted by the
respondent’s own material acknowledging the reserved journey undertaken
by the deceased. The inquiry authorities merely presumed that since no
subsequent journey ticket between Ghaziabad and Old Delhi was recovered,
the deceased must have been crossing the railway line. Such inference is
2
(2019) 3 SCC 572
3
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04
entirely conjectural and insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from
the proved railway journey already undertaken by the deceased. As noted
above, Talib Hussain has testified to the effect, that in his presence, the
deceased had purchased the journey ticket to Old Delhi Railway Station and
thus, the initial burden cast on the claimant stands discharged.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by the
Tribunal on the issue of bona fide passenger are unsustainable and liable to
be set aside.
22. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2016 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 25.05.2026.
23. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
24. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 12, 2026
kk
Signature Not Verified
FAO 154/2017 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:12.05.2026
19:15:04