Mev Umrfaruk & Anr. vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25.04.2026
Pronounced on : 07.05.2026
Uploaded on : 07.05.2026

+ FAO 272/2024

MEV UMRFARUK & ANR. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood,
Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Ritu Reniwal, SPC with Mr.
Gaurav Kumar, 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 31.01.2024, passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) No. 180/2023 titled
as “ Mev Umrfaruk & Anr. vs. Union of India” .

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application primarily on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger, despite holding that the incident in question constituted as an
“untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the Railways
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that
Signature Not Verified
FAO 272/2024 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
19:05:57

on 14.06.2022, one Mohd. Fahad Mev (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”) had accompanied his brother, sister, brother-in-law and cousin
to Alwar Railway Station, from where they were travelling to Ahmedabad by
Train No. 12916 ( Ashram Express). It is stated that while on the way to the
railway station, the deceased expressed his intention to travel to along with
them and accordingly, after reaching Alwar Railway Station, a second class
journey ticket was purchased. Thereafter, after helping his relatives board
the reserved coach, while the deceased was attempting to board the general
compartment of the train, the train started moving, owing to which he lost
balance and accidentally fell between the platform and the train
compartment, resulting in fatal injuries and instantaneous death.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the Learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim
application despite having already returned a categorical finding that the
death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the
meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. It is submitted that the finding
regarding absence of bona fide travel is based merely on non-recovery of the
railway ticket from the body of the deceased and on conjectural conclusions
drawn in the DRM report. It is further submitted that the contemporaneous
official record and statements recorded during investigation clearly establish
that the deceased met with the said accident while boarding the train. The
oral testimonies of AW-1, Mev Umar Farukh and AW-2, Abdul Qadir
sufficiently establish that the deceased was travelling along with them after
purchasing a valid railway ticket which got lost during the accident.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
supports the impugned judgment and contends that no railway ticket was
Signature Not Verified
FAO 272/2024 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
19:05:57

recovered from the body of the deceased and therefore the deceased cannot
be treated as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that as per the
DRM report, there are inconsistencies in the statement of AW-2 and
therefore the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim application.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. At the outset, it may be noted that the Learned Tribunal has already
returned a categorical finding that the death of the deceased occurred in an
“untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act. The said finding was
returned after considering the contemporaneous official record including the
Station Master memo, Naksha Moka , statements of railway officials and the
evidence led by the parties. The Tribunal specifically held that the deceased
fell from the train while boarding the train at Alwar Railway Station and
further held that negligence on the part of the victim would not disentitle the
claimants from compensation, which was in view of the judgment of the
1
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi . The said finding
regarding occurrence of an untoward incident has not been challenged by the
respondent and has therefore attained finality.
8. The controversy in the present appeal is thus confined only to the
issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the
incident.
9. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim primarily on the ground
that no railway ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased at the
spot and that there were inconsistencies in the testimony of AW-2, Abdul
Qadir . However, the said finding cannot be sustained in view of the material

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 272/2024 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
19:05:57

available on record.
10. A perusal of the record shows that the railway journey particulars of
the co-passengers travelling along with the deceased stood duly verified by
the Railway Authorities themselves. The Ticket Verification Report
specifically verifies PNR No. 2442896404 for journey dated 14.06.2022
from Alwar to Ahmedabad by Train No. 12916 Ashram Express. The said
verification report records Coach No. D-4 (Second class) and Seat Nos. 83,
84, 86 and 87 in the names of Mev Saifur Rehma , Abdul Qadir , Mo. Zaid
Mev and Mev Atiya . The DRM report itself also acknowledges and refers to
the said verified journey particulars. The contemporaneous official record
also fully supports the case of the appellants regarding railway travel. The
Station Master memo specifically records that while Train No. 12916 was
departing from Alwar Railway Station, one person fell from the train and
sustained grievous injuries.
11. Furthermore, AW-2, Abdul Qadir , who was travelling along with the
deceased, categorically deposed that the deceased had purchased a railway
ticket in his presence and while boarding the train amidst rush and crowd,
accidentally slipped and fell from the moving train. The said witness
consistently maintained that the deceased was travelling along with the
family members and that the railway ticket got lost during the accident.
Nothing material emerged in his cross-examination so as to discredit the
core version regarding railway travel and accidental fall from the train.
Similarly, AW-1, Mev Umar Farukh , father of the deceased, specifically
deposed that the deceased was travelling along with Abdul Qadir and other
relatives after purchasing a valid railway ticket and that the ticket was lost
during the accident. The testimony of AW-1 also remained unshaken and
Signature Not Verified
FAO 272/2024 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
19:05:57

materially corroborated the version put forth by AW-2.
12. The Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) has categorically held that
mere absence or non-recovery of ticket does not negate the status of bona
fide travel. In the present case, the oral testimonies of AW-1 and AW-2,
coupled with the verified railway journey particulars and contemporaneous
official record, sufficiently establish the foundational facts regarding railway
travel, thereby shifting the burden upon the Railways, which remains wholly
undischarged.
13. The Learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that minor
discrepancies in the statement of AW-2, Abdul Qadir , regarding peripheral
aspects of the incident could not have been treated as fatal to the claim. It is
well settled that minor inconsistencies are bound to occur in statements
relating to traumatic incidents and the same cannot override consistent
contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing railway travel and
accidental fall from the train.
14. It is also well settled that accidental fall while boarding or deboarding
a train squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under
Section 123(c) of the Act. Similarly, in Rina Devi (supra), it was held that
death or injury resulting while boarding/deboarding a train would come
under “untoward incident” and shall not disentitle a claimant from
compensation under Section 124-A of the Act.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the appellants successfully established that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger travelling in Train No. 12916 ( Ashram Express) from
Alwar to Ahmedabad and that the findings returned by the Learned Tribunal
to the contrary are unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 272/2024 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
19:05:57

16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2024 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 15.05.2026.
17. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
18. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.




(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2026
kk


Signature Not Verified
FAO 272/2024 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
19:05:57