Rohan Kapoor vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 09.10.2026
Pronounced on : 06.11.2026
Uploaded on : 07.11.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010554902023

+ FAO 338/2023

ROHAN KAPOOR .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, SPC for UOI
with Mr. Riddhi Jain ans Ms.
Shayna Das Pattanayak,
Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants seek to assail the
judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in
Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/GZB/67/2019, whereby the claim
application filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries
sustained by him in a railway accident came to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 338/2023 Pg. 1 of 6

Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:07.11.2026
09:06:05

2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellant before the
Tribunal was that on 11.05.2018, he was travelling from Kanpur
Central to Ghaziabad by Train No. 12443 UP ( Haldia Express) after
purchasing a valid journey ticket. It was stated that, owing to heavy
rush in the general compartment, he was standing near the gate of the
compartment. When the train was passing through Bhadan Railway
Station, he was pushed by fellow passengers and, on account of the
sudden jerk and jolt of the train, fell from the moving train and
sustained grievous injuries, resulting in amputation of his right leg
above the knee.

3. Upon notice, the respondent/Railways filed its written statement
along with the DRM Report, disputing the claim. It was contended
that, as per the information received from the Points Man, one person
had been run over by Train No. 12443 UP at kilometre 1192/05 and
that no journey ticket had been recovered from the appellant. The
respondent, therefore, disputed his status as a bona fide passenger.
4. The Tribunal framed issues, inter alia, regarding the appellant’s
status as a bona fide passenger and whether he had sustained injuries in
an “untoward incident” as defined within the Railways Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The Tribunal accepted the
appellant’s case on the latter issue and held that the injuries had been
sustained in an “untoward incident”. However, on the question of bona
fide passenger status, the Tribunal disbelieved the appellant’s
evidence, principally on account of the discrepancies in the testimonies
of AW-1/ Rohan Kapoor and AW-2/Smt. Radha Rani , his mother.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned
Signature Not Verified
FAO 338/2023 Pg. 2 of 6

Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:07.11.2026
09:06:05

judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
appellant himself was examined as AW-1 and categorically deposed
that he was travelling after purchasing a valid journey ticket. Learned
counsel further submits that the Tribunal has attached undue
significance to the discrepancy regarding the person who purchased
the ticket and the persons accompanying the appellant, without
considering his age at the time of the incident and the circumstances in
which the journey was undertaken. Reliance is placed on “ Union of
1
India v. Rina Devi ” and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court
2
in “ Lata v. Union of India ” .

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the appellant, in his affidavit, claimed that he had
purchased the ticket himself, whereas in his cross-examination he
stated that his neighbour, Deepak Kumar , had purchased two separate
tickets, one for himself and the other for the appellant. It is further
submitted that there is no evidence to show that Deepak Kumar had
handed over the appellant’s ticket to him. It is thus contended that the
appellant failed to establish his bona fide passenger status.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record, including the claim application, the affidavits and
depositions of the witnesses, the DRM Report and the other documents
forming part of the paper book.
8. The issue of “untoward incident”, having already been decided
in favour of the appellant, the principal question which arises for

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 INSC 715
Signature Not Verified
FAO 338/2023 Pg. 3 of 6

Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:07.11.2026
09:06:05

consideration is whether the appellant had established that he was
travelling as a bona fide passenger in Train No. 12443 UP on the date
of the incident. The legal position governing this issue stands settled.
The Supreme Court, while considering the burden of proof in claims
arising out of railway accidents, held that mere absence of a ticket with
the injured or deceased passenger would not, by itself, negative the
claim of bona fide travel. The initial burden is upon the claimant,
which can be discharged by filing an affidavit setting out the relevant
facts. Once such foundational facts are placed on record, the burden
shifts to the Railways, and the issue is required to be decided on the
basis of the evidence and attending circumstances. {Ref: Rina Devi
( supra )}. The aforesaid principle has recently been reiterated by the
Supreme Court in Lata ( supra ) and more recently, in “ Sukhabhai
3
Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India ” , the Supreme Court
reiterated that where the claimant has deposed on oath regarding the
purchase of a valid ticket and its subsequent loss, the initial burden
stands discharged and the Railways must bring on record cogent
material to rebut such evidence.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
it is pertinent to note that the appellant himself entered the witness box
as AW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence. In the said affidavit,
he specifically deposed that on 11.05.2018 he was travelling from
Kanpur Central to Ghaziabad after purchasing a valid journey ticket.
He further stated that, owing to the absence of sufficient space inside
the compartment, he was standing near its gate and, when the train

3
2026 INSC 1056
Signature Not Verified
FAO 338/2023 Pg. 4 of 6

Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:07.11.2026
09:06:05

reached Bhadan Railway Station, it suddenly jerked, as a result of
which he fell from the moving train. He also categorically stated that
his wallet containing cash and the valid railway ticket was lost in the
incident.
9. Thus, the person who had himself undertaken the journey and
sustained the injuries entered the witness box and deposed on oath
about the relevant facts. His testimony, therefore, required
consideration in its entirety and in the context of the surrounding
circumstances.
10. The Tribunal, however, has rejected the appellant’s testimony
by placing considerable reliance on the answers elicited during his
cross-examination. It noticed that, whereas in his affidavit the
appellant stated that he had purchased the journey ticket himself, in
cross-examination he stated that he was travelling along with his
mother and a neighbour, Deepak Kumar , whom he used to address as
Bhaiya . He further stated that Deepak Kumar had purchased two
separate tickets, one for himself and the other for the appellant. The
Tribunal considered this statement to be inconsistent with his affidavit
and further observed that there was no evidence to establish that
Deepak Kumar had handed over the appellant’s ticket to him.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid
circumstances were required to be examined view of the surrounding
circumstances as well as in view of the beneficial nature of the
legislation. The appellant was about 13 years of age at the time of the
incident. His explanation in cross-examination that Deepak Kumar had
purchased two separate tickets, one for himself and the other for the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 338/2023 Pg. 5 of 6

Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:07.11.2026
09:06:05

appellant, does not, in substance, contradict the fact that a separate
journey ticket was purchased for the appellant.
12. It is also significant that the respondent has not examined any
witness to rebut his specific statement regarding the purchase of a
ticket for the journey. The non-recovery of the ticket during the
subsequent proceedings, in the absence of any further material
disproving the appellant’s version, cannot be treated as conclusive
against him.
13. 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 01.12.2026.
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
NOVEMBER 06, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
FAO 338/2023 Pg. 6 of 6

Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:07.11.2026
09:06:05