Manju Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 01.09.2026
Pronounced on : 09.09.2026
Uploaded on : 09.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010043672025

+ FAO 24/2025

MANJU DEVI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh,
Mr.Varun Chugh and Ms.
Ayushi Agarwal, 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
02.12.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in
OA/II(U)/DLI/278/2024.
2. The claim application came to be filed in the context of the
death of one Aman Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”),
who, on 15.08.2023, was travelling in Train No. 04446 from New
Delhi towards Faridabad . When the train left Tilak Bridge Railway
Signature Not Verified
FAO 24/2025 Page 1 of 5

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

Station, the deceased, who was standing near the gate as he was
feeling nauseous, lost his balance and fell from the running train. His
friends attempted to pull the emergency chain but could not stop the
train immediately and, after it slowed down, returned to the spot. The
deceased was found unconscious and was subsequently taken to Lady
Hardinge Medical College, where he was declared brought dead.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal
misplaced itselfby holding that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger merely because no journey ticket was recovered from his
person. It is submitted that a platform ticket bearing No. UAG-
67050302 was recovered from the deceased during jamatalashi and
was duly verified by the Railway Authorities. The ticket was issued at
New Delhi Railway Station at 18:59 hours on 15.08.2023, whereas the
DRM report records the time of the incident as 19:38 hours. The
appellants further rely upon the sworn testimony and affidavit of the
mother, Smt. Manju Devi , wherein she specifically stated that the
deceased and his friends had purchased journey tickets at New Delhi
Railway Station and that the journey ticketwas lost in the incident. It is
contended that the Tribunal could not have treated the absence of the
journey ticket as conclusive against the appellants, particularly when a
valid platform ticket was recovered and verified.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, objects
to the aforesaid submissions andcontendedthat the platform ticket
recovered from him only authorised his entry onto the railway
platform and did not authorise him to travel in the train. It is further
submitted that none of the alleged co-passengers were examined
Signature Not Verified
FAO 24/2025 Page 2 of 5

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

before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had purchased a
journey ticket before boarding the train.
5. The Tribunal, while deciding the claim, framed, inter alia, the
issues as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and
whether his death was caused in an “untoward incident” as defined in
the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). On the
latter issue, the Tribunal, after considering the General Diary entry and
the Station Master’s memo recording the fall of the deceased from
Train No. 04446, held that the deceased had died in an “untoward
incident”. The only adverse finding against the appellants was on the
question whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
6. The issue is required to be considered in the light of the law laid
1
down by the Supreme Court in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” . The
Supreme Court has held that mere absence of a ticket with the injured
or deceased passenger also does not, by itself, negative the bona fide
status. The initial burden on the claimant can be discharged by placing
on record an affidavit setting out the relevant facts, whereupon the
burden shifts to the Railways and the issue is to be determined on the
attending circumstances. The same principle has been reiterated by the
2
Supreme Court in “ Lata v. Union of India ” . The Court also reiterated
that the initial burden may be discharged by an affidavit and that the
matter is to be examined on the standard of preponderance of
probabilities.
7. In the present case, there is material beyond the mere assertion

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 INSC 715
Signature Not Verified
FAO 24/2025 Page 3 of 5

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

of the appellants. A platform ticket bearing No. UAG-67050302 was
actually recovered from the deceased during jamatalashi and was
verified by the Railways. The ticket was issued at 18:59 hours on
15.08.2023 and, as per the record, was valid for two hours. The DRM
report records the time of the incident as 19:38 hours. Thus, the
platform ticket was valid at the time of the incident. Further, the
mother of the deceased, in her affidavit, specifically stated that the
deceased had purchased a journey ticket and that the same was lost in
the accident.
8. More importantly, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal that a
platform ticket only authorised entry onto the platform and did not
authorise travel in the train does not, in the facts of the present case,
conclude the issue against the appellants. Section 124-A of the Act
while dealing with compensation for untoward incidents, expressly
provides in its Explanation that the expression “passenger” includes “a
person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train
carrying passengers or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of
an untoward incident”.
9. In light of the aforesaid as well as the affidavit of the mother,
the absence of the journey ticket, therefore, cannot be treated as
sufficient to displace the appellants’ case. The explanation that the
journey ticket was lost in the accident is consistent with the fact that
the deceased had fallen from a moving train and that a platform ticket
was nevertheless found on his person. The appellants had discharged
the initial burden contemplated in Rina Devi by placing the relevant
facts on record and by examining the mother of the deceased. The
Signature Not Verified
FAO 24/2025 Page 4 of 5

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

respondent have therefore, failed to rebut the aforesaid facts and
averments.
10. As regards the finding on “untoward incident”, the Tribunal has
already held, on the basis of the General Diary entry and the Station
Master’s memo, that the death of the deceased was the result of an
“untoward incident”. The said finding is in favour of the appellants
and has not been assailed by the respondent. There is, therefore, no
occasion for this Court to re-examine the said issue. The finding of the
Tribunal on the said issue is accordingly affirmed.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the deceased is held to have been a
bona fide passenger and his death having already been held by the
Tribunal to have resulted from an untoward incident, the appellants are
entitled to pursue their claim for compensation under the Act.
12. 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
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.
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
SEPTEMBER 09, 2026/ na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 24/2025 Page 5 of 5

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