Baijanti Devi & Ors vs Union Of India
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 09.10.2026
Pronounced on : 05.11.2026
Uploaded on : 05.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC011552332018
+ FAO 341/2018
BAIJANTI DEVI & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr.Ritik Singh, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ramjee Pandey, 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
22.03.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/170/2017,whereby the claim application filed by the
appellants seeking compensation on account of the death of one Shri
Pratap Singh Gurjar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was
dismissed.
2. The case set up by the appellants before the Tribunal was that
the deceased was returning to his village in Bayana , Rajasthan , along
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
with his three companions, namely, Ajay Pal , Suraj and Bhagchand , to
celebrate Holi . On 11.03.2017, Ajay Pal purchased a combined
journey ticket bearing No. A-18471055 for all four persons from
Hazrat Nizamuddin to Bayana for a sum of Rs.360/-. The four of them
boarded the general compartment of Dehradun Express and it was
pleaded that, owing to heavy rush inside the compartment, the
deceased got separated from his companions and, while the train was
passing through Faridabad New Town Railway Station, he
accidentally fell from the moving train on 12.03.2017 and sustained
fatal injuries. The other three companions came to know that the
deceased was missing only after reaching Bayana .
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the
appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger. It principally relied upon the non-recovery of a ticket
during the inquest proceedings and the discrepancy in the evidence
regarding the person who had handed over the ticket to the police. On
the question of “untoward incident”, the Tribunal disbelieved the
account of Ajay Pal on the ground that his statement before the police
and his deposition before the Tribunal differed regarding the
compartment in which the deceased was travelling. It also drew an
adverse inference from the time at which the body was reported, its
location as depicted in the site plan and the time at which Dehradun
Express was scheduled to pass through Faridabad New Town
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the combined
journey ticket, bearing the date and particulars of the journey, had
been produced on record and that the statement of Ajay Pal , who had
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
purchased the ticket for the group, was sufficient to establish the
deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger. It was further submitted
that the Tribunal had attached undue significance to the fact that the
ticket was not recovered from the person of the deceased, without
appreciating the explanation furnished by Pappu Singh regarding its
subsequent production. On the question of “untoward incident”, it was
urged that the Tribunal had drawn conclusions from the location of the
body and the time of its discovery without any technical or other
evidence establishing that the deceased could not have fallen from the
train.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the ticket was not recovered during the personal search of the deceased
and was produced only after the alleged incident. It was further
contended that the testimony of Ajay Pal was not reliable, particularly
in view of the difference between his statement recorded by the police
on 15.03.2017 and his deposition before the Tribunal on 04.12.2017.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger on Dehradun Express
at the relevant time. The Tribunal rejected the claim substantially on
the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the
deceased during the inquest proceedings.
8. The ticket bearing No. A-18471055 is on record. It is a
combined journey ticket from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Bayana , dated
11.03.2017, for a fare of Rs.360/-. The time of its issue, as reflected on
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
the ticket, is 21:19 hours. The case of the appellants throughout has
been that Ajay Pal /AW-2 purchased this ticket for the four persons
travelling together and he also,in his affidavit filed before the
Tribunal, reiterated the same.The record further shows that, in his
statement recorded by the GRP on 12.03.2017, Pappu Singh stated that
the journey ticket would be produced subsequently and the ticket was
thereafter shown to have been produced before the GRP on 15.03.2017
by Ajay Pal in the presence of Pappu Singh and Mukh Ram . Thus, the
fact that the ticket was not available with the police on the date of the
inquest proceedings is not inconsistent with Pappu Singh’s
contemporaneous statement that it would be produced later.
1
9. In “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” , the Supreme Court held that
the initial burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger rests upon the claimant. Such burden may be discharged by
placing on record an affidavit setting out the relevant facts, whereafter
the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim on the basis of the
evidence and attending circumstances. The Court also clarified that
mere absence of a ticket from the person of the deceased does
notnegative the claim of bona fide travel. This position has been
2
reiterated in “ Lata v. Union of India ” .
Applying the aforesaid principles to the evidence in the present
case, the appellants have discharged the initial burden. The combined
ticket was produced on record, Ajay Pal /AW-2 deposed that he had
purchased it for the four members of the groupand the statement of
1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
Pappu Singh recorded on the very date of the incident supports the
explanation that the ticket was to be produced subsequently. The
discrepancies regarding its physical delivery to the police do not
render the ticket itself doubtful or establish that it was unrelated to the
journey claimed. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in rejecting the bona
fide passenger status of the deceased.
10. The next question is whether the death of the deceased occurred
as a consequence of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers,
thereby constituting an “untoward incident” within the meaning of
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referredto as
the “Act”).
11. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the conduct of the
three companions after reaching Bayana . It questioned why they did
not immediately search for the deceased, why they went to the
residence of Pappu Singh and why Ajay Pal ’s presence at Faridabad
on 12.03.2017 was not reflected in the police record. These
circumstances do not establish that the deceased had not been
travelling in the train or that he had not fallen from it. The record
shows that Pappu Singh received information of the death from the
GRP in the morning and that his statement was recorded on
12.03.2017. The absence of Ajay Pal ’s name from the documents
relating to identification and receipt of the body cannot be treated as
proof that he had not travelled back or that the account of the journey
was fabricated.
12. The Tribunal has further relied upon the scheduled timing of
Dehradun Express. The ticket was issued at 21:19 hours on
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
11.03.2017. AW-2 stated that the train departed from Hazrat
Nizamuddin shortly after they boarded it, at around 21:30 hours. The
Tribunal observed that the scheduled departure of the train was 21:50
hours and proceeded on the basis that it would have passed Faridabad
Railway Station at around 22:34 hours and Faridabad New Town at
around 22:40 hours. On that basis, it reasoned that if the deceased had
fallen near Faridabad New Town, his body ought to have been noticed
much earlier than 04:30 hours, when the information was recorded.The
said reasoning proceeds on an assumption that the scheduled passage
of the train necessarily represents its actual movement on the date in
question and that the body, if lying at the place shown in the site plan,
would necessarily have been noticed by railway staff or by the crew of
every train passing thereafter. The record does not contain material
establishing the actual time at which Dehradun Express passed
Faridabad New Town on that night. Nor does the time at which the
body was reported establish the time at which the deceased sustained
the injuries or fell from the train. The Station Master’s memo and the
GRP record establish that information regarding the body was received
at about 04:30 hours on 12.03.2017. The interval between the
scheduled passage of the train and the reporting of the body, therefore,
could not have been treated as proof that the alleged fall had not taken
place.
3
13. In “ Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India ” , this Court
considered a similar issue where the Tribunal had doubted an
accidental fall on the ground that the body was found between railway
3
2026 SCC OnLine Del 2351
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
lines. It was held that the mere place where the body is found cannot,
by itself, lead to the conclusion that the deceased was not travelling by
the train or that the occurrence did not constitute an untoward incident.
The Court noticed that a person who falls from a moving train may
retain sufficient strength to move away from the track before
succumbing to the injuries. The same approach was followed
4
in “ Sukhmander Singh v. Union of India ” , wherein it was held that the
location of the body and its position, in the absence of other cogent
material, cannot conclusively determine the precise manner in which
the accident occurred. The site plan in the present case, therefore,
cannot be read in isolation or treated as conclusive proof against the
appellants.
14. The statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Act is one of
5
no-fault liability. In “ Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar ” ,
the Supreme Court held that the provision is intended to provide
compensation for untoward incidents irrespective of any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of the Railways. The same principle has
been reiterated in “ Rina Devi ” (supra) . Thus, once the accidental fall of
a bona fide passenger is established, the question whether the deceased
was standing near the gate or was otherwise negligent in his conduct
does not, by itself, defeat the claim. None of the statutory exceptions
under the proviso to Section 124-A has been established in the present
case.
4
2026 SCC OnLine Del 7298
5
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27
15. 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 17.12.2026.
16. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
17. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 05, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 341/2018 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
18:15:27