Sukhmander Singh vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 31.08.2026
Pronounced on : 09.09.2026
Uploaded on : 09.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010029252020

+ FAO 103/2021

SUKHMANDAR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma (SPC),
Mr.Sachin Singh and
Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 9433/2021 (Seeking condonation of delay of 786 days
in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/appellants seek
condonation of delay of 786 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants
are poor and illiterate persons belonging to an economically weaker
section and, due to paucity of funds, were unable to contact a counsel
and obtain timely legal advice.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 1 of 8

1
3. It is noteworthy that in “ Mohsina vs. Union of India ” , a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the
appeal, taking into account the appellant/claimant’s weak economic
2
condition. Similarly, in “ Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India ” ,
this Court allowed the application and condoned a delay of 1326 days,
considering the appellants’ financial hardship and the surrounding
circumstances.
4. The Railways Act, 1989, and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,
1987, arise from a beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to
provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward
incidents. In such matters, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is
required when considering applications for condonation of delay, so
that genuine claims are not defeated on technical grounds.
5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, and guided by the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions,
as well as the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court
finds that the appellants have been able to show sufficient cause for
the delay in filing the present appeal.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay
of 786 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
7. The application is disposed of accordingly.
FAO 103/2021
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated

1
(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003
2
(2026) FAO 49/2022 (04.04.2026)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 2 of 8

02.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), in Claim Application
No. OA (IIu) No. 192/2017 titled as “ Sukhmander Singh v. Union of
India ”.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 13.07.2016, the appellant, Sh.
Sukhmander Singh , who had come to Delhi in search of employment,
was travelling from Old Delhi Railway Station to Ghaziabad . He was
accompanied to the station by his uncle, Sh. Singara Singh , who had
purchased a journey ticket for him. The appellant thereafter boarded an
EMU train for Ghaziabad . Owing to the heavy rush in the
compartment, he was standing near the doorway when the train
suddenly started moving and gave a violent jerk, due to which he fell
from the moving train. He sustained grievous injuries, including
amputation of both legs below the knees, along withhead injuries and
broken teeth. He was thereafter removed to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi,
for treatment.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the
appellant 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 appellant,while assailing the impugned
judgement, contends that the appellant travelled from Old Delhi
Railway Station to Ghaziabad and that his uncle purchased a valid
journey ticket for him. Learned counsel further contends that thenon-
recovery of the ticket, by itself, cannot lead to the conclusion that the
appellant is ticketless, particularly when he explains that the ticket was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 3 of 8

kept in his bag along with his other belongings, which were lost in the
accident. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on “ Union of India v. Rina
3
Devi ” .In addition to the aforesaid, learned counselalso submits that
the Tribunal’s finding that he was “run over” while trespassing is
based on conjecture, as no eyewitness was examined to establish that
he was crossing the railway tracks.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the
impugned judgmentandcontends that no railway ticket was recovered
from the appellant and that there are material discrepancies between
the statements of the appellant and his uncle regarding their arrival at
Old Delhi Railway Station. It is further submitted that the appellant
could not identify the train or explain the loss of his bag, allegedly
containing the ticket. Learned counsel relies on the contemporaneous
record, including the DRM Report and the RPF statement, to contend
that the appellant was found near a shunting side with both legs on the
railway track and was “run over” by a train travelling towards
Ghaziabad , rather than having accidentally fallen from a passenger
train.
6. Insofar as the status of the appellant being a bona fide passenger
is concerned,it is not disputed that no journey ticket was recovered
from him. However, mere non-recovery of a ticket is not, by itself,
sufficient to hold that a claimant was not a bona fide passenger.The
Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra)held that the initial burden upon
the claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit setting out the
relevant facts, whereafter the onus shifts upon the Railway

3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 4 of 8

Administration to rebut the claim by leading cogent evidence. This
principle has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in “ Lata v.
4
Union of India ” .
Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
Sh. Sukhmandar Singh /AW-1has categorically stated in his testimony
that he was travelling on the strength of a valid journey ticket. During
his cross-examination, he remained consistent about the material
particulars and deposed that his uncle had accompanied him to the
railway station and purchased the ticket for him. The appellant’s
statement before the railway authorities also reflected the same
version. The said version is further corroborated by the statement of
his uncle,Sh. Singhara Singh , who stated that he had accompanied the
appellant to the railway station and had purchased the ticket for him
and thereafter made him board the train.
7. The Tribunal had also relied heavily on the inconsistency
between the appellant’s and his uncle’s statements about the time they
arrived at Old Delhi Railway Station. However, this discrepancy alone
is insufficient to undermine the appellant’s case. The appellant
claimed he boarded the train around 1:00 p.m., while his uncle said
they reached Old Delhi Railway Station around 2:00-2:30 p.m.The
discrepancy, thus, relates only to the precise time of arrival at the
railway station and does not displace the consistent evidence regarding
the purchase of the ticket and the intended journey to Ghaziabad .
8. In this regard, a gainful reference may also be made to the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in “ Dharamawati v.

4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 5 of 8

5
Union of India ” , wherein it was reiterated that the contemporaneous
railway record and the surrounding circumstances must be appreciated
in their entirety when determining whether the claimant was travelling
as a bona fide passenger, and that isolated circumstances ought not be
singled out to discard an otherwise consistent case.
9. The next question is whether the appellant sustained the injuries
on account of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
10. The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s account of an accidental
fall primarily on the ground that he was found at shunting siding No.
161, and that the position of his body, with both legs lying inside the
railway track and the remaining portion outside it, indicated that he
had been “run over” by a train while crossing the railway tracks.
11. The conclusion that the appellant was a trespasser who had been
“run over” by a train is not supported by any ocular evidence. Equally,
there is no material on record, apart from the inference drawn in the
DRM Report, that conclusively establishes that the appellant had been
“run over” while trespassing. Moreover, the mere fact that the
appellant stated that he was “run over” does not, by itself, exclude the
possibility that he first fell from a moving train and thereafter came
under its wheels.
12. Merely because the body was found “near the shunting line”
cannot lead to the conclusion that the deceased was not a railway
passenger or that he was attempting to cross the railway track. It also
cannot be overlooked that the place where the body was found was not

5
2026 SCC OnLine Del 1164

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 6 of 8

at such a distance from the railway station as to completely rule out the
possibility of the deceased accidentally falling from a passenger
train. In this regard, it is also apposite to note that Section 2(31) of the
Act defines the expression “railway” in an inclusive manner so as to
encompass, inter alia, “all lines of rails, sidings, or yards, or branches
used for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway”. The
respondent has failed to produce any material showing the exact
movement of the relevant train.
A similar view has consistently been taken by this Court in
6
similar factual situations. In “ Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India ” ,
this Court reiterated that merely because the body was found at some
distance from the railway track would not, by itself, justify the
conclusion that the deceased was not travelling by the train in question
or that the incident did constitute an “untoward incident”.
Further, the mere location where the appellant was found and the
position of his body, without more, cannot conclusively determine the
precise manner in which the accident occurred.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant 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.
15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned
judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned
Tribunal to assess the amount of compensation payable to the

6
2026 SCC OnLine Del 2351
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 7 of 8

appellant in accordance with law and to pass appropriate consequential
directions. The matter be listed before the Tribunal on 30.09.2026.
16. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
17. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER09, 2026
na


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:09.09.2026
19:07:03
FAO 103/2021 Page 8 of 8