Babita & Ors vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 02.09.2026
Pronounced on : 09.09.2026
Uploaded on : 09.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010094032020

+ FAO 34/2020

BABITA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar Shisodia,
Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, SPC with
Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Mr. Mohit
Kumar Tomar, Mr. Mayank
Sherawat, Mr. Vivek Kumar
and Mr. Keshav, Advocates

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
18.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in
OA(IIu)/2015/GZB/010, whereby the claim application filed by the
appellants came to be dismissed.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 14.11.2014, one Vijay Kumar
Signature Not Verified
FAO 34/2020 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03

(hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was returning from Delhi to
Ghaziabad by an EMU train. It was the appellants’ case that, when the
train reached Platform No.5 at Ghaziabad Railway Station, the
deceased was in the process of alighting from the train when, due to a
sudden and heavy jerk, he fell from the running train and sustained
grievous injuries. He was initially taken to M.M.G. Hospital,
Ghaziabad and thereafter referred to G.T.B. Hospital, Shahdara ,
Delhi , where he succumbed to his injuries on 26.11.2014. The
appellants’ consistent case is that the deceased was carrying a valid
journey ticket which was lost in the occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal
erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger
merely because no journey ticket was recovered from his person. It is
submitted that the appellants had specifically pleaded that the ticket
was lost in the occurrence and that evidence was led in support of the
deceased having purchased the ticket before undertaking the journey.
It is further submitted that the respondent did not examine any witness
and relied only upon the DRM Report. Learned counsel contends that
the Tribunal further erred in rejecting the occurrence on the basis of its
own assumption that there was no space between the EMU and the
platform through which a passenger could fall.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits
that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. It is further
submitted that the Station Master’s memo dated 14.11.2014 records
that one person was lying on Platform No.5 after being dashed by a
train and that there was no evidence of the deceased having fallen
Signature Not Verified
FAO 34/2020 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03

from the train. Reliance is also placed upon the post-mortem report
and the absence of a panchnama to contend that the injuries were not
established to have resulted from an accidental fall from the train.
5. Coming first to the question whether the deceased was a bona
fide passenger, the issue is required to be considered in the light of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in “ Union of India v. Rina
1
Devi ” . The Supreme Court has held that mere absence of a ticket with
the injured or deceased passenger does not, by itself, negative the bona
fide status. The initial burden on the claimant can be discharged by
placing the relevant facts and circumstances on record, whereafter the
burden shifts upon the Railways to rebut the same. The same principle
2
has recently been reiterated in “ Lata v. Union of India ” , wherein the
Supreme Court has further held that the issue is to be examined on the
standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the
appellants’ case is not founded merely upon the absence of the journey
ticket. Their consistent case, from the claim application through the
appeal, has been that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket
and that the same was lost in the accident. The wife of the deceased,
Smt. Babita , categoricallydeposed that the deceased had purchased the
ticket and the fact that the ticket was not subsequently recovered from
the deceased cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as
sufficient to displace this evidence. This version is further
corroborated by the testimony of Charan Kumar Thakur , brother-in-

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 INSC 715
Signature Not Verified
FAO 34/2020 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03

law of the deceased, who stated that he had seen the deceased purchase
the railway ticket from the Delhi Booking Office before proceeding
towards Ghaziabad . The fact that the ticket was not subsequently
recovered from the deceased, therefore, cannot, in the facts of the
present case, be treated as sufficient to displace this evidence.Thus,
once the appellants discharged the initial burden by placing their case
and evidence on record, the Railways were required to rebut the same
by cogent material and has considerably failed in doing so.
6. Coming to the manner of occurrence, the case of the appellants
is specific, the deceased was in the process of alighting from the EMU
at Platform No.5, Ghaziabad Railway Station, when a sudden and
heavy jerk caused him to fall from the train. The Tribunal rejected this
version principally on the reasoning that the EMU covered the
complete edge of the platform and that a person falling from the train
could not roll beneath the track. Such reasoning is based on an
assumption as to the precise mechanics of the accident, for which there
is no evidentiary basis on record. As observedin Rina Devi (supra) the
Supreme Court has specifically held that an accidental fall while
boarding or de-boarding a train would constitute an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Thus, the fact that the
deceased was in the process of alighting from the train when he
suffered the fall is, in itself, sufficient to bring the occurrence within
the statutory expression, provided the deceased was otherwise
established to be a bona fide passenger, which, as noted above, he is.
7. Further,as observed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
FAO 34/2020 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03

3
“ Dharmvir v. Union of India ” , there is no “divine camera” to capture
the exact manner in which a railway accident occurs and the Court has
to examine the occurrence on the basis of the evidence and
surrounding circumstances available on record.A similar view in this
regard has been taken by this Court in “ Jai Pal &Ors. v. Union of
4
India ” , where an injury sustained by a passenger while alighting from
a train due to a sudden and heavy jerk was also held to be an
“untoward incident”.
8. The Tribunal’s further reliance on the nature of the injuries and
the absence of a specific medical opinion that they could have resulted
from a fall from the train also does not justify rejection of the claim.
The contemporaneous railway record records the deceased having
been found at Platform No.5 after the incident, while the DRM inquiry
itself considered the occurrence of the deceased falling “while getting
down from the train”, though it attributed the same to his alleged
negligence. Such negligence, however, cannot take the occurrence
outside the ambit of Section 124-A, since Rina Devi (supra) has made
it clear that “self-inflicted injury” requires an intentional act and does
not include mere negligence. The occurrence is, therefore, held to be
an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
9. 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 appellants in accordance with
law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within

3
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7279
4
2022 SCC OnLine Del 4309
Signature Not Verified
FAO 34/2020 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03

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
30.09.2026.
10. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
11. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 09, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 34/2020 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03