Lakshami Bai vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 04.05.2026
Pronounced on : 08.05.2026
Uploaded on : 08.05.2026

+ FAO 336/2022

LAKSHAMI BAI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC with Mr.
Rudra Paliwal, 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 15.07.2022, passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/08/2021.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal, while
categorically holding the deceased to be a bona fide passenger travelling on
a valid railway journey ticket, dismissed the claim application primarily on
the ground that the appellant failed to establish that the death of the deceased
occurred in 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 borne out from the claim application, are
Signature Not Verified
FAO 336/2022 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:43:16

that on 27.02.2020, one Umesh Raj Sahagal (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”) was travelling from Bijwasan to Pataudi Road on the strength
of a valid journey ticket. During the course of the said railway journey, the
deceased met with a railway accident between Pataudi Road and Jataula
Railway Stations, resulting in fatal injuries and consequent death.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal
has failed to appreciate the contemporaneous official record in its correct
perspective and has returned findings contrary to the material available on
record. It is submitted that the recovery and verification of the railway ticket
already stood proved and the Tribunal itself has returned a finding that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that the entire
contemporaneous record including the Station Master memo, inquest
report/ jamatalashi proceedings, post-mortem report, cumulatively
establishes that the deceased died in a railway track accident during the
course of railway travel and there exists no material whatsoever to bring the
case within any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to
Section 124-A of the Act.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment and submits that there is no eyewitness to the alleged accidental
fall and no direct evidence to conclusively establish the precise manner in
which the deceased came into contact with the train. It is further submitted
that the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application.
6. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the issue regarding the
deceased being a bona fide passenger already stands concluded in favour of
Signature Not Verified
FAO 336/2022 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:43:16

the appellants. The learned Tribunal itself has returned a categorical finding
that the deceased was travelling on the strength of a valid railway ticket and
accordingly the only issue which survives for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of the Act.
8. The contemporaneous official record placed on record does not
support the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal. The earliest version of
the occurrence emerges from the Station Master/SS memo dated 27.02.2020,
wherein it was specifically recorded that information had been received from
on-duty gateman Sunil Kumar that one dead body was lying near KM No.
60/25-27 and necessary action was required to be taken regarding the same.
The said information was recorded in the normal course of railway
functioning immediately upon detection of the incident and there is nothing
on record to suggest that the same was fabricated or subsequently
embellished. Pursuant thereto, the information was transmitted to GRP and
RPF authorities and memo proceedings were initiated. Similarly, the
statement of gateman Sunil Kumar clearly records that after Train No. 19264
crossed Gate No. 46-C, some persons informed him regarding a dead body
lying near the railway track and thereafter the information was relayed to the
Station Master. Significantly, neither the Station Master nor the gateman
stated anywhere that the deceased was crossing the railway line, walking on
the railway track or trespassing over railway property.
9. The inquest report specifically records that the death occurred due to
“railway track accident”. The SHO opinion recorded in the same
proceedings further states that in his opinion the cause of death of the
deceased was due to railway track accident and “none is to be blamed”.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 336/2022 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:43:16

Thus, in the present case, the inquest proceedings itself unequivocally
establish that the death occurred in a railway accident and there was no
material suggestive of suicide, self-inflicted injury or criminal act.
10. The jamatalashi proceedings further record recovery of one Vivo
mobile phone, cash amount and railway journey ticket bearing No. UAD-
51640285 from the person of the deceased. The said ticket was subsequently
verified by the railway authorities and the verification report specifically
records that the said ticket had been issued on 27.02.2020 at Bijwasan for
travel to Pataudi Road.
11. The learned Tribunal has however proceeded to reject the claim
primarily on the ground that there was no eyewitness to the alleged
accidental fall and that the DRM/RPF reports did not conclusively establish
the same. It is well settled that in railway accident cases, direct eyewitness
testimony is often unavailable and the occurrence is required to be inferred
from surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous official record.
Absence of direct evidence cannot therefore be treated as determinative so as
to defeat a beneficial legislation enacted for payment of compensation in
cases of railway accidents.
12. The DRM report itself records that the deceased was found dead at
KM No. 60/25-27 between PTRD and JSKA Railway Stations; that valid
railway ticket bearing No. UAD-51640285 was recovered and verified; that
the body was detected after passage of Train No. 19264; and that no
eyewitness regarding the exact manner of occurrence was available. The
final conclusion recorded in the DRM report itself states that it could not be
clearly established as to how exactly the incident occurred. It neither records
that the deceased was crossing the railway line nor attributes the death to
Signature Not Verified
FAO 336/2022 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:43:16

suicide, intoxication, criminal act or intentional trespass. Similarly, the RPF
investigation merely records statements of loco pilots, guards and railway
officials stating that no unusual incident was noticed during train operation.
However, mere absence of notice by the crew cannot by itself negate the
occurrence of an accidental fall, particularly where the deceased was later
found dead near the railway tracks immediately after train movement.
13. The learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that the burden upon
the claimants under Section 124-A of the Act is only to establish
foundational facts on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

14. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme
1
Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , wherein it was held as under:
“ Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged
by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then
shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts
shown or the attending circumstances. ”
15. In the present case, not only the initial burden stood discharged, but
there exists unimpeached documentary evidence in the form of ticket
recovery, ticket verification, official memo proceedings, inquest report and
medical opinion, all supporting the case of the appellants.
2
16. Further, in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors . , it
was held that the provisions relating to compensation under Section 124-A
are required to receive liberal and beneficial interpretation and once an
“untoward incident” is established, the liability of the Railways becomes

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
FAO 336/2022 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:43:16

strict unless the case falls within any statutory exceptions. In the present
case, there is absolutely no material available on record to bring the case
within any statutory exception. The Railways have failed to establish
suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, insanity, criminal act or
intentional trespass.
17. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the death of the
deceased occurred in the course of a railway accident and squarely falls
within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read
with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
18. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2022 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 18.05.2026.
19. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
20. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.




(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 08, 2026
kk



Signature Not Verified
FAO 336/2022 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:43:16