Smt. Rajkumari & Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 13.04.2026
Pronounced on : 27.04.2026
Uploaded on : 27.04.2026

+ FAO 352/2025

SMT. RAJ KUMARI & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Kshitiz Jain, Mr. Rohan Chandra
and Ms. Ananya Mago, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Mr.
Vipul Kumar, GP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 79947/2025 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
FAO 352/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/265/2024.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased was
neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged incident an “untoward
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43

incident” as defined under 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
on 16.08.2019, one Sh. Devendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”) had gone to Aligarh to visit his sister for the occasion of Raksha
Bandhan and was returning therefrom by Train No. 54461 from Aligarh to
Dibai Railway Station. It is the case of the appellants that while the train
was in motion between Rajghat Naraura and Dibai Railway Station, the
deceased accidentally fell from the running train during the night hours and
sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which he died on spot.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the Tribunal has erred in disregarding the contemporaneous
material on record, as the GRP proceedings and the inquest material
consistently indicate that the deceased was found “lying near the railway
track” and had sustained fatal injuries in a railway accident. It is further
submitted that the post-mortem report records ante-mortem injuries which
are consistent with the case of accidental fall from a moving train. It is also
contended that the Tribunal has wrongly discarded the testimony of
Chandra Pal Singh , who had specifically deposed that he had accompanied
the deceased to Aligarh Railway Station and had got the journey ticket
purchased for his travel. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in
drawing adverse inference from the timing of recovery of the body and in
holding that the body remaining unnoticed for some time goes against the
case of accidental fall.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment by contending that no journey ticket was recovered from the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43

person of the deceased during jamatalashi and, therefore, the deceased
cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that as per
the DRM report, there was no report of any “untoward incident” by the loco
pilot of Train No. 54461. It is also contended that the statements recorded
during investigation, including that of the claimant, indicate that no ticket
was found and that the circumstances of the incident remain unestablished.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused
the material on record.


7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for
consideration are whether the incident in question constitutes an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of the Act and whether the deceased was a
bona fide passenger.
8. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the contemporaneous
material on record does not support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal.
The record reflects that the information regarding the dead body was
received in the early hours of 17.08.2019, whereafter the deceased was
found lying near the railway track at KM No. 124/08-09, between Rajghat
Naraura and Dibai . The inquest proceedings record that the deceased was
found “adjacent to the track” with injuries, and there is no material to
indicate that the deceased was “run over” while crossing the railway line.
The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is not borne out from the record.

9. The Tribunal has, however, proceeded to rely upon the DRM report
dated 24.06.2024 to conclude that the occurrence took place in an “unknown
sequence of events” and that the deceased was not travelling by train. A
perusal of the said report shows that the inquiry was conducted after a lapse
of nearly five years from the date of the incident and is admittedly not based
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43

on any eyewitness account. The report itself records that the sequence of
events is unknown and yet proceeds to draw an adverse inference against the
appellants. Such a belated inquiry, conducted long after the occurrence and
even after institution of the claim proceedings, lacks contemporaneous basis
and cannot be accorded due evidentiary value, as such the delay is fatal to
the facts of the case because what essentially needs to be gathered is what
exactly happened on the date of the incident. (Ref: Bhola vs. Union of
1
India )


10. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the body remained unnoticed for
several hours and, therefore, the case of accidental fall is improbable, is
equally untenable. The incident is stated to have occurred during the night
hours and the body being noticed in the morning cannot, by itself, negate the
occurrence of an accidental fall. A gainful reference in this regard, may be
2
made to the decision of Sh. Surendra Prasad Verma vs. Union of India ,
wherein it has been held that mere delay in the recovery or discovery of the
body cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor to disbelieve the case of
accidental fall, particularly in the absence of any cogent evidence to the
contrary. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, the
mere fact that the body was noticed after some time cannot lead to an
adverse inference against the claimant or discredit the appellant’s version.
11. Insofar as the issue of bona fide travel is concerned, the Tribunal has
rejected the claim primarily on the ground that no journey ticket was
recovered from the person of the deceased. This approach is contrary to the

1
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486
2
(2014) SCC OnLine Del 2917
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43

3
settled position of law. In Union of India vs. Rina Devi , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the initial burden on the claimant can be
discharged by filing an affidavit and placing relevant circumstances on
record, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways to rebut the same. It
has been further clarified that mere non-recovery of a ticket cannot, by itself,
be treated as conclusive to deny compensation.
12. In the present case, the appellants have discharged this initial burden.
AW-2, Chandra Pal Singh , has categorically deposed that he had
accompanied the deceased to the railway station and had got the journey
ticket purchased for travel from Aligarh to Dibai . The Tribunal has
discarded this testimony on the ground that he was a witness to the
panchnama proceedings, and was, thus, a highly interested witness and not a
truthful one. The Tribunal has further relied upon certain discrepancies in
the testimony of AW-2 with regard to distance and timing to discredit the
witness. A perusal of the deposition shows that these discrepancies are
peripheral in nature and do not affect the substratum of the case. Minor
inconsistencies relating to distance or timing, especially when the testimony
is recorded years after the incident, cannot be elevated to the level of
discrediting the entire version of the witness. In the opinion of this Court,
such reasoning is legally unsustainable, as it itself is not a ground to discard
testimony, particularly when the core of the statement, namely the purchase
of ticket and commencement of journey, remains consistent.

13. Further, the surrounding circumstances lend corroboration to the
appellants’ case. It has come on record that the deceased had travelled to
Aligarh to celebrate Raksha Bandhan with his sister, and significantly, a

3
(2019) 3 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43

Rakhi was also found on the person of the deceased, as noted in the post-
mortem proceedings. This circumstance assumes importance, as it
corroborates the version of AW-2 that the deceased had travelled to Aligarh
and was returning thereafter. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
evidentiary value of this circumstance.
14. Once the appellants had discharged the initial burden, the onus shifted
upon the respondent to establish that the deceased was not a passenger or
that the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions. The respondent has
failed to discharge this burden. The DRM report does not provide any
cogent alternative explanation and merely records an “unknown sequence of
events”. The statement of the loco pilot only indicate absence of reporting
and do not negate the possibility of an accidental fall.
15. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the presumption arising in
favour of the appellants remains intact. This Court is of the view that the
Tribunal, in the present case, adopted an unduly rigid standard of proof,
overlooking the beneficial object of the Act as well as the settled principle
that proceedings, thereunder, are intended to provide prompt and efficacious
relief to the victims of railway accidents, and has, therefore, erred in
rejecting the claim by adopting a hyper-technical approach and by placing
undue reliance on conjectural material while ignoring the surrounding
circumstances and settled legal principles.

16. It is well settled that the provisions relating to compensation under
Section 124-A of the Act constitute a piece of beneficial legislation and
must be construed liberally. In Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43

4
Kumar , the Supreme Court held that once the occurrence of an “untoward
incident” is established, the liability of Railways is strict unless the case falls
within the statutory exceptions. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Rina Devi
(supra), it was held that the non-recovery of a ticket is not itself sufficient to
defeat a claim for compensation.
17. 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 11.05.2026.
18. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
19. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.



(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2026
kk



4
( 2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 352/2025 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:27.04.2026
18:46:43