Sh. Virender vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 19.08.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
Uploaded on : 01.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010163242019

+ FAO 132/2019

SH. VIRENDER .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha and
Mr.Bipin Kumar, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal and
Mr.Nipun Jain alongwith
Mr.Divanshu, 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
22.11.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. OA(IIu)
68/2018 titled “ Sh. Virender v. Union of India ”, whereby the claim
application filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries
sustained in an “untoward incident”came to be dismissed.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 08.02.2017, the appellant
boarded a passenger train from Okhla Railway Station for travelling to
Signature Not Verified
FAO 132/2019 Page 1 of 4

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

Palwal after purchasing a valid journey ticket. When the train reached
Tughlakabad Railway Station, the appellant got down to get water and
in the meantime, the train started moving and while attempting to re-
board the train, the appellant fell and sustained grievous injuries. He
became unconscious and was taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex
Trauma Centre, AIIMS. The bag containing his clothes and journey
ticket was also stated to be lost in the incident. The appellant’s left leg
was subsequently amputated below the knee.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
had consistently stated that he had purchased a ticket for Palwal and
had kept the same in his bag containing his clothes, which bag was lost
in the incident. It was further submitted that the appellant’s statement
recorded by the GRP at the relevant time also recorded that he had
purchased the ticket and kept it in the bag which was lost in the
incident. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had not led
any evidence to establish that the appellant was travelling without a
ticket and that the Tribunal erredin rejecting the appellant’s
explanation merely on the basis of its own assumption that a passenger
undertaking a short-distance journey during daytime would not keep
the ticket in his bag.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
contended that no journey ticket was recovered from the appellant and
that his version regarding having kept the ticket in the bag could not be
accepted, particularly when his purse containing cash and identity card
had been recovered. Reliance was also placed on the DRM Report and
the circumstances surrounding the non-recovery of the ticket to
Signature Not Verified
FAO 132/2019 Page 2 of 4

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

contend that the appellant had failed to establish that he had lawful
authority to travel.
5. At the outset, it may be noted that the Tribunal has already
returned a categorical finding that the appellant had fallen from the
train while attempting to board the same and that the occurrence
qualified as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said finding has not been
challenged by the respondent and has, therefore, attained finality. The
only question which survives for consideration in the present appeal is
whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the relevant time.

6. The law on the issue is no longer res integra. In “ Union of India
1
v. Rina Devi ” , the Supreme Court held that mere absence of a ticket
with an injured or deceased person would not negative the claim that
he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden lies upon the
claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant
facts, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways.
Applying the aforesaid principle tothe present case, the
appellant hascategorically deposed that he had purchased a ticket of
Rs.15/- for Palwal from Okhla Railway Station and had kept the same
in his bag containing his clothes. When questioned by the Tribunal as
to why he had kept the ticket in the bag, he explained that he used to
keep the ticket in the bag due to the apprehension that it might
otherwise be lost. This version is also consistent with the
contemporaneous GRP record, wherein the appellant stated that he had
purchased the ticket and put it in his bag which was lost in the

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 132/2019 Page 3 of 4

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

incident. The respondent, despite disputing his bona fide status, did not
lead any cogent evidence to establish that the appellant had travelled
without a ticket.
7. The aforesaid position finds further support from the decisions
of this Court in similar decisions pertaining to injury claims. In “ Raj
2
Kumar v. Union of India ” this Court dealt with an injury claim where
the journey ticket had not been recovered and, while relying upon Rina
Devi (supra), held that the claimant’s affidavit stating that he had
undertaken the journey after purchasing a valid ticket was sufficient to
discharge the initial burden when the Railways failed to lead
independent evidence to dislodge that assertion.
8. 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 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.
9. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
10. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026

na

2
2026 SCC OnLine Del 3242
Signature Not Verified
FAO 132/2019 Page 4 of 4

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