Sharda & Ors. vs Uoi

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 09.10.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026

# CNR No. DLHC011131082008

+ FAO 257/2008

SHARDA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: None
versus
UOI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta, ASC
for UOI with Ms. Rakshita Goel
and Mr. Sanyam Gupta,
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
09.05.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/52/2005, whereby their claim application seeking
compensation on account of the death of one Anil Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as the “deceased”) came to be dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the case set up before the Tribunal was that on
06.04.2005, the deceased, along with his friend Mahesh Kumar , was
travelling from Jatola Jodi Sampka Railway Station to Delhi Junction
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11

by Meerut Shuttle after purchasing two valid second-class journey
tickets. It was pleaded that when the train reached near Basai Dhankot
Railway Station, the deceased, who was standing near the gate of the
compartment, fell from the moving train due to a sudden jerk and
landed on the adjoining railway track. At the same time, another train
approaching from the opposite direction ran over him, resulting in his
death at the spot.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues
regarding the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger, whether his
death resulted from an “untoward incident” and the entitlement of the
appellants to compensation. The Tribunaldisbelieved the testimony of
AW-2/ Mahesh Kumar , principally on account of the variation in his
affidavit and cross-examination regarding the events following the
incident. It also drew an adverse inference from the amendment in the
destination station from New Delhi to Delhi Junction and the non-
production of the journey tickets.
4. The appellants, by way of this appeal, assails the impugned
judgment by pleading that AW-2 had categorically deposed regarding
the purchase of two journey tickets and the deceased boarding the
Meerut Shuttle along with him. The fact that the tickets were not
recovered was explained by the appellants on the ground that the
deceased’s body had been crushed in the incident. It was also stated
that the amendment in the destination station was duly allowed by the
Tribunal, without any objection from the respondent, and the same
could not subsequently have been treated as a circumstance indicating
mala fides on the part of the appellants.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the
impugned judgment, submits that the claimants have failed to establish
that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger. It is
contended that the testimony of AW-2 is unreliable, particularly in
view of the improvements made by him during cross-examination
regarding his conduct after the incident. Learned counsel further
submits that the change in the destination station after the filing of the
written statement, coupled with the absence of the journey tickets and
the entry in the death report suggesting suicide, creates serious doubt
regarding the case set up by the appellants.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respondent and,
with his assistance, perused the impugned judgment and the material
available on record, including the pleadings, depositions of AW-1 and
AW-2 and the documents exhibited before the Tribunal.
7. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident. In this
regard, the legal position stands settled by the Supreme Court
1
in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” , wherein it was held that the initial
burden upon the claimant to establish the deceased’s status as a bona
fide passenger is not onerous. Once the claimant establishes the
relevant facts and circumstances indicating that the deceased was
travelling as a passenger, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the
same. The mere non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself, be
treated as conclusive against the claimant.
In the present case, AW-2/ Mahesh Kumar was the person who

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11

had accompanied the deceased on the journey. In his affidavit by way
of evidence, he specifically stated that on 06.04.2005, both of them
had arrived at Jatola Jodi Sampka Railway Station, where he
purchased two tickets from the booking office for their journey to
Delhi Junction. He further stated that both boarded the Meerut Shuttle
and, owing to the rush of passengers, had to remain standing in the
compartment. During his cross-examination, he reiterated that he had
purchased both tickets, each costing ₹9/-, and had handed them over to
the deceased. He also stated that the tickets were lost in the accident.
8. The testimony of AW-2 on the purchase of the tickets and the
commencement of the journey is direct evidence, as he himself claims
to have undertaken the journey along with the deceased. The fact that
the tickets were not subsequently recovered cannot be held to be
conclusive against the appellants, particularly when the case set up by
the appellants is that the deceased was crushed under the wheels of
another train and his body was found in a mutilated condition. The
Tribunal was required to consider the testimony of AW-2 on this
aspect, firstly in view of the settled law and secondly, keeping in mind
the beneficial nature of the legislation, along with the surrounding
circumstances and the documents on record.
9. The Tribunal has also drawn an adverse inference for altering
the destination station from New Delhi to Delhi Junction. A perusal of
the record would show that the original claim application mentioned
New Delhi Railway Station as the destination. The respondent, in its
written statement, relied upon the DTC record dated 06.04.2005 to
contend that no ticket had been issued from Jatola Jodi Sampka
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11

Railway Station for New Delhi Railway Station on the relevant date.
Thereafter, the appellants sought amendment of the claim application,
which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.04.2007.
Pertinently, the respondent had expressly stated that it had no objection
to the proposed amendment.However, the amendment was permitted
by the Tribunal with the consent of the respondent, and the amended
claim application was placed on record.
10. The next question is whether the death of the deceased resulted
from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2)
of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The
aforesaid provision includes the accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Act provides for
compensation where a passenger dies as a result of an “untoward
incident”, irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration, subject to
the exceptions stipulated therein.
11. In the present case, the documents placed on record establish
that the deceased’s body was found on the railway track and that he
had sustained fatal injuries in an incident involving a train. The case of
the appellants has been that the deceased first fell from the Meerut
Shuttle and thereafter came under the wheels of another train
approaching on the adjoining metre-gauge track.The Tribunal rejected
this version primarily on the ground that it was unnatural for a person
falling from a broad-gauge train to land on an adjoining metre-gauge
track and be run over by another train. However, the conclusion that
such an occurrence was improbable could not have been drawn merely
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11

on the basis of the gauge of the two tracks. No evidence was led by the
respondent to establish the actual configuration of the tracks at the
place of occurrence or to demonstrate that the manner of occurrence
pleaded by the appellants was physically impossible.
12. The Tribunal has also placed considerable reliance upon
Column No. 21 of the death report, wherein it was recorded that the
incident appeared to be a case of suicide. It is pertinent to note that the
entry itself records only a possibility and does not constitute a
conclusive finding that the deceased had deliberately taken his own
life. The mere recording of such a possibility in the death report,
without any supporting material, could not have been treated as
sufficient to attract the statutory exception under Section 124-A of the
Act.A similar view was taken by this Court in “ Rajpati v. Union of
2
India ” , wherein it was observed that the condition in which a body is
found cannot, by itself, rule out the possibility that the deceased had
fallen from a moving train and thereafter come into contact with its
3
steps or wheels. Likewise, in “ Smt. Pinki & Ors. v. Union of India ” ,
this Court examined the limits of drawing an inference regarding the
manner of occurrence merely from the location of the body and the
injuries recorded in the post-mortem report. The principle emerging
from these decisions is that the manner of occurrence has to be
determined on a cumulative assessment of the evidence and not on the
basis of an isolated circumstance.
13. The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and its provisions are

2
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540
3
(FAO 166/2023, decided on 30.07.2026)
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11

required to be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of
providing compensation to victims of railway accidents and their
dependants. The principle of no-fault liability embodied in Section
124-A of the Act cannot be diluted by applying an unduly strict
standard of proof to the claimants. The material on record is required
to be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,
keeping in view the nature of the incident and the circumstances in
which evidence is ordinarily available. A claimant cannot be expected
to establish every minute detail of an accident with mathematical
precision. Once the material on record establishes that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an
“untoward incident”, compensation cannot be denied in the absence of
material establishing any of the statutory exceptions.
14. 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
22.12.2026.
15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
16. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 04, 2026/ na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 257/2008 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:22:11