Guddi Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25.09.2026
Pronounced on : 02.11.2026
Uploaded on : 02.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010066382026

+ FAO 59/2026

GUDDI DEVI & ANR. .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Samta Jain and Mr. Aakash
Poddar, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC with Ms.
Archana Kumari, Advocate and Ms.
Yashika Rawal, GP

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
24.12.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/DLI/637/2024, whereby the claim application filed by the
appellants seeking compensation on account of the death of their son,
Sonu Kumar Meena (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), came to
be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42

2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants before the Tribunal
was that on 18.03.2024, the deceased was travelling from Alwar
Junction to Delhi Cantt. by Train No. 22996 ( Mandore Express), after
purchasing a valid journey ticket. It was pleaded that, owing to heavy
rush in the general compartment, the deceased was standing near the
gate and when the train was passing near Ganda Nala , East Sagarpur ,
he accidentally fell from the moving train due to a push from fellow
passengers and a sudden jerk.The deceased succumbed to his injuries.
The appellants, being his parents, thereafter approached the Tribunal
seeking compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”).
3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that
while Mandore Express was passing on the DN line, the deceased’s
body was found on the eastern side of the UP line and his severed right
hand was lying in the middle of the UP line. It was of the view that,
having regard to the distance between the two railway lines and the
nature of the injuries, the deceased could not have moved from the DN
line to the UP line after falling from the train. The Tribunal also held
that the ticket recovered from the deceased did not make him a bona
fide passenger of a train travelling on the UP line.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the
impugned judgment, submitted that the recovery of the valid journey
ticket establishes that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide
passenger in Mandore Express, an aspect which is also not disputed by
the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the material on
record, including the police proceedings and the final inquest report,
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42

supports the appellants’ case that the deceased had fallen from the
moving train.It is contended that the mere fact that the body was
subsequently found near the adjoining railway line could not have led
to the conclusion that the deceased was crossing the railway track.
Learned counsel also points out the discrepancy in the site plans
accompanying the police proceedings and the DRM report, and submits
that the position of the body has not been consistently depicted in the
two documents.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent, while defending
the impugned judgment, submits that the deceased was travelling in a
train running on the DN line, whereas his body was found near the UP
line. It is contended that the distance between the two lines and the
nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased renders the appellants’
version doubtful. It is further submitted that neither the loco pilots nor
the train managers of the concerned trains reported having witnessed
any incident involving the deceased.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
7. At the outset, the finding of the Tribunal on the bona fide
passenger status of the deceased is liable to be set aside. The original
journey ticket bearing No. UDB-38642967 was placed on record. The
respondent, in its written statement, acknowledged that the ticket had
been verified from the CRIS office and was found to have been validly
issued. More importantly, the order dated 09.04.2025 records the
submission of learned counsel for the respondent expressly admitting
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In view of the said
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42

admission, the Tribunal specifically observed that no issue was required
to be framed regarding his status as a bona fide passenger. The
proceedings thereafter continued on the basis of the issues framed,
which did not include any dispute regarding the validity of the ticket or
the deceased’s status as a passenger. Having recorded such an
admission and proceeded accordingly, the Tribunal could not, while
deciding the claim, return a finding against the appellants on the very
same question. The subsequent reasoning that the deceased was not a
valid passenger of a train travelling on the UP line proceeds on an
entirely misplaced premise. The ticket was for the journey from Alwar
to Delhi Cantt. and its validity was never dependent upon the particular
railway line on which the deceased’s body was eventually found. The
deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger thus stands established.
8. The controversy which remains for consideration is whether the
death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the
meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. Section 124-A of the Act
provides for compensation on the principle of no-fault liability where
death or injury is caused in an untoward incident, subject to the
exceptions specifically enumerated therein. The question, therefore, is
not whether the appellants have been able to establish the precise
mechanics of the fall, but whether the material on record, considered as
a whole, makes an accidental fall from a passenger train more probable
than the alternative suggested by the respondent.
9. The contemporaneous record establishes that the deceased was
found near KM No. 15/05-07. The post-mortem report records multiple
grazed abrasions, gross laceration on the right side of the chest with
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42

exteriorisation of internal organs, traumatic amputation of an upper
limb, injuries to the lower limb, multiple rib fractures and severe
cranio-cerebral injury. These injuries were recorded as ante-mortem
and fresh, and the possibility of a train accident was noted. The
NakalRoznamcha dated 18.03.2024 also records the condition in which
the body and its severed parts were found. The material, therefore,
establishes a death involving contact with a moving train. The fact that
the deceased’s body was found near the UP line, while Mandore
Express had passed on the DN line, is undoubtedly a relevant
circumstance, however, it cannot be treated as conclusive of the manner
in which the deceased came to be at that location.
10. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the deceased could not have
reached the UP line after falling from Mandore Express rests
substantially on the distance between the two tracks and the severity of
the injuries. The said measurement, however, does not establish the
precise manner in which a person falling from a moving train, and
thereafter being exposed to the movement of another train, would come
to be found at a particular spot. Nor does it establish that a person
sustaining injuries in such an incident would necessarily be incapable
of any movement thereafter. The Tribunal has proceeded on an
assumption regarding the physical possibility of the deceased reaching
the UP line, without any material establishing the precise trajectory of
the fall or ruling out the possibility that the deceased, after falling from
Mandore Express, came to be on or near the adjacent line.
11. Pertinently, the record refers to Mandore Express passing on
the DN line and Shatabdi Express passing on the UP line, with an
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42

interval between the two movements. The absence of any report from
the loco pilots or train managers that they had witnessed the incident
cannot be said to establish that no such incident occurred. Equally, the
absence of an eyewitness cannot be treated as fatal to a claim of this
nature, where the incident is alleged to have taken place while the
deceased was travelling in a moving train. The Tribunal was required to
assess the contemporaneous material, the condition of the body, the
nature of the injuries and the surrounding circumstances cumulatively.
Instead, it treated the location of the body and the distance between the
tracks as determinative, without adequately examining whether the
circumstances, taken together, supported the appellants’ version of an
accidental fall.
12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in “ Ravindra Singh
1
&Anr. v. Union of India ” , wherein it was held that the location and
condition in which a body is found cannot, in isolation, furnish an
inflexible test for determining whether the deceased had fallen from a
running train. The circumstances surrounding the incident have to be
examined as a whole, and the possibility of an accidental fall cannot be
discarded merely on the basis of the position of the body or the nature
of the injuries.
13. It is equally necessary to bear in mind that the provisions of the
Act providing for compensation in cases of “untoward incidents” are
beneficial in nature. In “ Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
2
Kumar ” , the Supreme Court emphasised that such provisions must

1
FAO 49/2026, decided on 01.09.2026
2
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42

receive a liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the
legislation. The principle of no-fault liability under Section 124-A was
3
reiterated in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” , wherein the Supreme
Court also clarified that negligence on the part of a passenger cannot,
by itself, be equated with a self-inflicted injury. The claimants are
required to establish the occurrence on a preponderance of probabilities
andthey cannot be expected to produce direct evidence of an incident
which ordinarily takes place without the presence of an eyewitness.
14. 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 30.11.2026.
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
NOVEMBER 02, 2026
na



3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 59/2026 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:54:42