Maya Ghosh & 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 : 01.09.2026
Uploaded on : 01.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC012651452017

+ FAO 126/2018

MAYA GHOSH & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates


UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC with
Mr. Shivam Kumar, GP and
Mr.Kush Garg, 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
30.11.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
bearing No. OA/II(U)/63/2016.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 21.10.2015, one Sh. Rajesh
Ghosh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), aged about 26 years,
was travelling from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Jhansi by
Train No.14310, ( Dehradun - Ujjain Express). It was the case of the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2018 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

appellants that the deceased had purchased a journey ticket for the said
journey and had boarded the train. During the course of the journey,
when the train reached between Tugalkabad and Okhla Railway
Stations, due to heavy rush inside the compartment and a sudden jerk
of the moving train, the deceased fell from the train and sustained fatal
injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the impugned
judgment by submitting that the Tribunal erred in holding that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger merely because the journey
ticket was not recovered from his person. It was submitted that the
evidence of AW-2/ Jitendra specifically established the purchase of the
ticket by the deceased and that the ticket had been kept in his bag,
which was lost in the incident. Reliance was placed upon the decision
1
of the Supreme Court in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” as well as the
2
subsequent decision in “ Lata v. Union of India ” .
4. On the contrary,learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the appellants had failed to discharge the burden of establishing
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was submitted that no
journey ticket was recovered from the deceased despite cash and old
railway tickets having been recovered from his body and, therefore,
the Tribunal had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the
appellants.
5. At the outset, it may be noted that the Tribunal has already
returned a categorical finding that the deceased died in an “untoward

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2018 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

incident” within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal was of the
opinion that a fall while attempting to board the train, whether from
the platform side or the offside, qualifies as an untoward incident. The
place and manner of the fall were not in serious dispute and since the
said finding has not been challenged by the respondent, it has,
therefore, attained finality.
6. The controversy in the present appeal is, therefore, confined to
the issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the
time of the incident.
7. It is trite law that mere fact that no journey ticket was recovered
from the deceased cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient to reject the
claim.It is trite law that mere non-recovery of the journey ticket
cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the deceased was not
a bona fide passenger. In Rina Devi (supra), the Supreme Court held
that the initial burden upon the claimants is not an unduly onerous one
and can be discharged by placing the attendant facts and circumstances
on record, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways to rebut the
same by leading cogent evidence. The aforesaid principle has recently
been reiterated in Lata (supra).
Pertinently, the Tribunal noted that two old tickets dated
14.09.2015 and 26.09.2015, some papers and cash of Rs.326/- had
been recovered from the body and observed that if the deceased had
possessed the journey ticket for 21.10.2015, the same should also have
been found and further relied upon the fact that, according to the
appellants, the deceased had kept the ticket in his bag.
8. The aforesaid reasoning, however, overlooks the specific
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2018 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

evidence led by the appellants on the question of purchase of the
journey ticket. AW-2/ Jitendra categorically deposed that on
21.10.2015 he accompanied the deceased to Hazrat Nizamuddin
Railway Station and helped him purchase the ticket for Rs.145/- for
his travel to Jhansi. He further stated that the deceased kept the ticket
inside his bag along with money and other articles and thereafter
boarded the train, whereupon AW-2 returned to his home.
9. The testimony of AW-2 is material because he is not merely
repeating what he was subsequently told by the family members of the
deceased. His evidence is that he “himself accompanied” the deceased
to the railway station and assisted him in purchasing the ticket. The
said testimony is further corroborated by the testimony of AW-1/ Maya
Ghosh .
10. At this stage, a gainful reference may be made to the decision
3
in “ Bhola vs. Union of India ” , wherein it was observed that mere
absence of ticket at the earliest stage or discrepancies regarding
recovery thereof would not by itself be sufficient to discard a claim as
the ticket could have popped out of the passenger’s pocket or
otherwise lost after he fell down from the train.
11. It is also material that the Railways have not countered the said
evidence to establish that the deceased had boarded Train No.14310
without a ticket. The DRM Report proceeds principally on the absence
of a ticket from the deceased and, on that basis, describes him as
ticketless.
12. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and

3
AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 3278
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2018 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

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

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER01, 2026
na




Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2018 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39