Reeta Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 20.08.2026
Pronounced on : 03.09.2026
Uploaded on : 03.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010863112025

+ FAO 301/2025

REETA DEVI &ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood & Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Kshitij Chhabra, SPC with
Mr.RahulKumar, GP

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
20.06.2025passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/DLI/08/2025titled as “ Smt. Reeta Devi&Ors. vs. Union
Of India ”.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set out before the Tribunal, are
that on 02.04.2023, one Sh. Ravi Kant (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”) was travelling from Kasganj to Agra , on the strength of a
second-class journey ticket, by Train No. 15056 ( Agra Fort Express
Train). It is averred that during the course of the aforesaid travel, when
the train was passing between Kasganj and Marhara railway stations,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49
FAO 301/2025 Page 1 of 5

the deceased accidentally fell from the train and died at the spot. The
journey ticket and other belongings are stated to have been lost in the
incident.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the
deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the alleged
incident qualify as an “untoward incident” as defined under the
Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned
judgment contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the
initial burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger stood discharged by the affidavits of AW-1/ Smt. Reeta
Devi , wife of the deceased and AW-2/Sh. Umesh , brother-in-law of the
deceased, whocategorically deposed that the ticket was purchased in
his presence and that he had seen the deceased off at Kasganj . It was
submitted that mere non-recovery of the ticket cannot negate bona fide
statusand in this regard he placedrelianceis placed
1
onthedecisionin“ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” .
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no
ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi and that the evidence of
AW-2 regarding purchase of the ticket in his presence was an
afterthought, not disclosed in the claim petition or to any official at the
earliest stage. It was contended that the DRM Report and
contemporaneous records concluded that the deceased was “run over”
while crossing the track, and that the nature of injuries supported the

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49
FAO 301/2025 Page 2 of 5

theory of being hit by a moving train rather than a fall from a
passenger train.
6. A perusal of the proceedings would show that it is an admitted
fact that no ticket was recovered at the time of the incident. However,
as per Rina Devi (supra), the law regarding the non-recovery of the
journey ticket is well settled. The initial burden resting upon the
claimants is only to place on record the relevant facts and
circumstances to establish bona fide travel, whereafter the onus shifts
upon the Railway Administration to rebut the same by leading cogent
evidence. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in “ Lata
2
v. Union of India ” .
Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
Sh. Umesh /AW-2, the brother in law of the deceased, categorically
deposed that he accompanied the deceased to the Kasganj Railway
Station to see him off and the deceased purchased a second-class
journey ticket in his presence. Additionally, Smt. Reeta Devi /AW-1,
wife of the deceased, also deposed regarding the purpose of the
journey and purchase of a ticket. The respondents failed to lead
anyoral evidence to rebut the same. The Tribunal, however, discarded
the testimony of AW-2 principally on the ground that the fact of ticket
purchase in his presence was not mentioned in the claimapplication
and was disclosed only at the stage of evidence.Pertinently, is it
relevant to note that the name of Umesh was, though, mentioned in the
claim application, the omission was, therefore, not as to the identity of
the witness but only as to the specific assertion regarding the ticket. In

2
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49
FAO 301/2025 Page 3 of 5

the opinion of this Court, the said discrepancy, by itself, does not
detract from the categorical assertion of AW-2 in his affidavit,
particularly when the respondents failed to lead any evidence in
rebuttal.
7. The next issue that arises for consideration is whether the
deceased died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the
Act. A careful consideration of the record would show that the first
information given by the Loco Pilot of Train No. 49165 (Goods Train)
as recorded in the Station Master’s memo, only states that a dead body
was lying “inside the track” at KM 248/17-18 and does not record any
eye-witness account of run-over. The DRM Reportas well as the other
contemporaneous railway records, recordthat the deceasedhad come in
the “ chapet ” of a moving train while crossing the train and none of
these records contains any eye witness account of the deceased
committing a trespass.
8. In addition to the aforesaid, the nature of the injuries, though
severe, cannot, by itself, conclusively establish the manner in which
the deceased came to be on the railway track. The possibility that the
deceased may have accidentally fallen from the train and thereafter
come under its wheels cannot be ruled out merely on the basis of the
nature of the injuries or the condition in which the body was found.

9. This assumes significance in view of the nature of liability
contemplated under Section 124-A of the Act. The provision is
founded on the principle of strict liability and constitutes beneficial
legislation. As observed by this Court in “ Smt. Sanju Devi &Anr. v.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49
FAO 301/2025 Page 4 of 5

3
Union of India ” , where the Railways seek to attribute to the deceased
an act falling within the exceptions contemplated under Section 124-
A, the same has to be established on the basis of the evidence on
record and cannot be founded merely on an unsupported conclusion. In
the present case, apart from the conclusions drawn in the investigative
records, there is no independent evidence to establish the precise
manner in which the deceased came to be on the track.
10. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion and considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the
beneficial nature of legislation, the deceased is held to have been a
bona fide passenger and the occurrence is held to fall within the ambit
of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
11. Accordingly, 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
21.09.2026.
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/ na

3
2026 SCC OnLine Del 3366
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:23:49
FAO 301/2025 Page 5 of 5