Ami Chand vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25.09.2026
Pronounced on : 29.10.2026
Uploaded on : 29.10.2026

# CNR No.DLHC015399992017

+ FAO 15/2018

AMI CHAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Nagar, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. T.P. Singh, 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
04.07.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/165/2016, whereby the claim application filed by the
appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a railway
accident was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant claimed to have
undertaken a journey from Jalandhar to New Delhi on 01.02.2016 by
Train No. 12498, ( Shane Punjab Express), after purchasing a valid
journey ticket. His case was that when the train was approaching Sadar
Signature Not Verified
FAO 15/2018 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

Bazar Railway Station, he came near the gate of the compartment to
prepare for his arrival at New Delhi Railway Station. Owing to a
sudden jerk and the pushing of passengers inside the compartment, he
accidentally fell from the moving train and sustained grievous injuries.
The appellant was initially taken to a Government hospital and was
thereafter admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi , on 02.02.2016.
He remained admitted till 18.02.2016, and his left leg was ultimately
amputated on account of the injuries sustained in the incident.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal, while
acknowledging that the appellant had fallen from the running train and
sustained injuries resulting in the amputation of his left leg, held that,
though the accident was duly covered under the definition of the
“untoward incident” of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”), he failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger.
The Tribunal relied upon the non-production of the journey ticket, the
absence of independent evidence regarding its purchase, and the
variation between the appellant’s account in the claim proceedings and
his statement recorded by the Railway Protection Force (RPF). It also
relied upon the statement attributed to one Shri Kali Charan in the
DRM Report. Having returned the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal
dismissed the claim application.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned
judgment, contending that the appellant had categorically stated in his
claim application and affidavit that he had purchased a valid journey
ticket, and the mere fact that the ticket was not recovered after the
accident could not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that no ticket had
Signature Not Verified
FAO 15/2018 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

been purchased. It is further contended that the occurrence of the fall
and the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant stand established
from the material on record, including the medical records. The finding
that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger is, therefore, stated to
be contrary to the settled position of law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states
that the appellant failed to produce the journey ticket or any
independent evidence to establish its purchase. It is further contended
that the appellant’s varying versions regarding the circumstances in
which he fell from the train, read with the statement attributed to Kali
Charan in the DRM Report, cast doubt upon his case.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. The only question which arises for consideration is
whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant’s claim on
the ground that he had failed to establish his status as a bona fide
passenger, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that he sustained
grievous injuries in a fall from the running train.
7. The question of the burden of proof concerning the status of a
bona fide passenger, particularly where the journey ticket is not
1
recovered, is no longer res integra. In “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” ,
the Supreme Court held that the mere absence of a ticket with an
injured or deceased person does not negate the claim that such person
was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden rests upon the claimant
and may be discharged by filing an affidavit setting out the relevant
facts of the journey. Upon discharge of this initial burden, the onus

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 15/2018 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

shifts to the Railways, and the issue is to be decided on the basis of the
facts established and the attending circumstances.
8. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the had specifically pleaded
that he had purchased a journey ticket for travelling from Jalandhar to
New Delhi . The said assertion was reiterated in his affidavit before the
Tribunal.The appellant, thus, discharged the initial burden of
establishing his status as a bona fide passenger and that the respondent
failed to rebut the same by cogent evidence.
9. Pertinently, the Tribunal proceeded on the premise that, since
the appellant was conscious enough to make an emergency call to the
police, he would necessarily have known if his ticket had been taken
away. The inference drawn in this regard is speculative. The fact that
the appellant was able to make a telephone call does notestablish that
he retained possession of every article which he had been carrying
before the accident. Nor does the non-recovery of the ticket establish
that it had never been purchased in the first place. The Tribunal was
required to assess the appellant’s assertion in the light of the settled
law, the attending circumstances and in view of the beneficial nature of
the concerned legislation, rather than reject it on the basis of an
inference which is not borne out by the record.
10. It is also noticed that the Tribunal placed considerable reliance
upon the variation between the appellant’s account of the accident and
the statement recorded during the investigation. In the claim
application, the appellant attributed his fall to a sudden jerk and the
pushing of passengers inside the compartment, whereas in his
statement recorded by the Railway Protection Force, he referred to the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 15/2018 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25

snatching of his purse and being pushed by an unknown person. The
absence of a reference to the alleged snatching in the FIR was also
noticed by the Tribunal. However, these circumstances do not displace
the consistent and material assertion that the appellant suffered a fall
from the train and sustained injuries. The precise circumstances
leading to the fall, as narrated in the two versions, may differ, but such
variation cannot, in the facts of the present case, be elevated to a
ground for rejecting the claim in its entirety.
11. 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
13.01.2027.
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 29, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 15/2018 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:14:25