Manju Lata Verma & Anr vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 28.09.2026
Pronounced on : 03.11.2026
Uploaded on : 03.11.2026

# CNR No. DLHC015205722017

+ FAO 505/2017

MANJU LATA VERMA & ANR .....Appellants

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

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurav Kansal, Advocate

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
22.03.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim
Application No. OA/II(u)/18/2016, whereby the claim petition
filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of the
death of one Shri Vijay Kumar Verma (hereinafter referred to as
the “deceased”) came to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25

2. The deceasedwas travelling on 19.08.2015 from Old
Delhi Railway Station towards Ghaziabad by the Sealdah
Express. The case of the appellants was that the deceased was a
daily passenger and held a Monthly Season Ticket (MST) bearing
No.1230BA022C, Ticket No.88021779, for travel between
Meerut City and Delhi and vice versa. The ticket was valid up to
12.09.2015. It was stated that, on the date of the incident, the
deceased was returning from work and, as there was no train
available for Ghaziabad at that time, he boarded the Sealdah
Express to reach Ghaziabad , from where he intended to take
another train for Meerut . Owing to heavy rush in the general
compartment, he was standing near the gate. When the train
reached Shahdara Railway Station, he fell from the moving train
and sustained grievous injuries. He was initially taken to GTB
Hospital and thereafter shifted to Batra Hospital, where he
succumbed to his injuries on 25.08.2015.
3. The Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment, accepted that
the occurrence constituted an “untoward incident” and that the
appellants were dependants of the deceased within the meaning of
Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”). The claim was, however, dismissed on the ground
that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the MST
produced by the appellants was not valid for travel in the Sealdah
Express, being a Superfast train.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was holding
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25

a valid MST on the date of the incident. It was contended that the
mere fact that he had boarded a Superfast train could not, without
examining the applicable railway instructions, lead to the
conclusion that he was not a bona fide passenger. Reliance was
1
placed upon “ Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India ”
2
and “ Shameemunissa v. Union of India ”.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/Railways, while supporting the impugned judgment,
contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the
Sealdah Express. It was submitted that the Monthly Season
Ticket relied upon by the appellants was valid for travel between
Meerut City and Delhi and could ordinarily be used for passenger
trains. However, the same did not, by itself, entitle the deceased
to travel in a Superfast train.Learned counsel submitted that the
Tribunal had rightly appreciated the material on record and that
no interference with the impugned judgment was warranted.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record. The controversy in the present appeal is confined to
the finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The
findings returned by the Tribunal that the occurrence constituted
an “untoward incident” and that the appellants are dependants of
the deceased are not under challenge and do not call for
reconsideration.

1
FAO 174/2009
2
CMA No.679/2010, decided by the Madras High Court on 09.01.2014.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25

7. Notably, the MST placed on record is a material
circumstance which could not have been overlooked. The DRM
report itself records that MST No.88021779 was recovered from
the deceased and that its validity was verified through the
Booking Office, Meerut . The verification confirmed that the MST
was valid up to 12.09.2015 and covered the route between Meerut
City and Delhi . Thus, the existence and validity of the MST on
the date of the incident stand duly established. The deceased was
not a person found travelling without any travel authority rather
he was in possession of a season ticket valid for the route on
which he ordinarily travelled.
8. The fact that the deceased was travelling in
the Sealdah Express, a Superfast train, nevertheless required
consideration in the light of the applicable railway instructions. In
this regard, Clause 242.1(iv) of the Indian Railway Conference
Association (IRCA) Coaching Tariff, Part I, Volume I, provides
that monthly tickets are valid for travel by Passenger trains and,
in the case of Mail/Express/Superfast trains, only in those trains
in which such travel has been specifically permitted by the
Railway Administration. Further, Clause 242.1(vi) provides that,
wherever such travel is permitted, season-ticket holders may
travel in the unreserved coaches of Superfast trains upon
purchasing the prescribed Superfast surcharge ticket in advance.
The said clause also stipulates that the surcharge is not leviable on
season-ticket holders travelling by Superfast trains whose total
journey, from the originating station to the destination station, is
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25

less than 325 kilometres. Paragraph 265(a) of the Indian Railway
Commercial Manual, Volume I, further provides for the
notification of the rules and conditions governing the issue of
season tickets by the respective Railway Administrations. It is,
therefore, necessary to examine not merely the category of the
train but also whether travel by season-ticket holders was
specifically permitted in the train in question and whether the
surcharge requirement was attracted.
9. This aspect assumes significance in view of the order
dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Tribunal itself. By the said order,
the respondent was specifically directed to clarify whether an
MST issued for travel between two stations in a passenger train
could be used for travel in another category of train on payment
of additional charges and whether such a journey could be
undertaken with an MST. The respondent had filed the DRM
reportand did not lead any further evidence. A perusal of the
report shows that it contains the inquiry conducted by the RPF,
the statements recorded during the inquiry and the verification of
the MST. However, it does not contain any instruction or circular
showing whether MST holders were permitted to travel in the
unreserved coaches of the Sealdah Express or whether such travel
was specifically prohibited. No such material has been pointed
out from the record.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25

3
10. In “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” , the Supreme Court
held that the initial burden on a claimant to establish that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger is not onerous and may be
discharged by placing relevant facts and circumstances on record.
Once such material is produced, the burden shifts to the Railways
to rebut the claim by cogent evidence. In the present case, the
appellants produced the MST, and its validity was independently
verified by the Railways during the inquiry. The respondent was
also specifically called upon by the Tribunal to clarify the
conditions governing travel by an MST holder in another category
of train. However, the relevant instructions governing the Sealdah
Express were not produced.
11. The decision of this Court in “ Reshma &Ors. v. Union of
4
India ” , is also relevant. The Court, while examining the question
of bona fide passenger status in the context of a valid season
ticket and travel in a Superfast train, emphasised the need to
consider the applicable railway instructions and the material
placed by the Railways before denying the claim.
12. The deceased was found carrying a valid MST, the
validity of which was verified by the Railways themselves. The
respondent did not place on record the relevant instructions to
establish that travel by an MST holder in the unreserved coach of
the Sealdah Express was not permitted. Nor could the absence of
a separate surcharge ticket, by itself, conclude the issue without

3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
4
FAO 224/2019, decided on 28.11.2023
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25

first establishing the applicability of the permission and surcharge
provisions to the train in question. The Tribunal, therefore, erred
in rejecting the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger.
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 03, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 505/2017 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25