Delhi High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Non-recovery of a ticket and unsupported run-over conclusions cannot defeat an untoward-incident compensation claim.

Reeta Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: September 03, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Non-recovery of a ticket and unsupported run-over conclusions cannot defeat an untoward-incident compensation claim.. Reeta Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 2 April 2023, Ravi Kant was allegedly travelling from Kasganj to Agra by Train No. 15056, Agra Fort Express, on a second-class journey ticket.

Source reference: p.1–2; paras. 1–2

It was claimed that, while the train was passing between Kasganj and Marhara railway stations, he accidentally fell from the train and died.

Source reference: p.1–2; paras. 1–2

The ticket and his other belongings were allegedly lost in the incident.

Source reference: p.1–2; paras. 1–2

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

Source reference: p.2; para. 3

The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Source reference: p.1; para. 1
02

Issues

Whether the deceased was proved to be a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of his journey ticket.

Source reference: p.3–4; para. 6

Whether the deceased’s death fell within the meaning of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, or whether he was run over while trespassing or crossing the railway track.

Source reference: p.4–5; paras. 7–10
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court.

Source reference: p.1; para. 1

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes strict liability on the Railways for death or injury caused by an untoward incident, subject to statutory exceptions.

Source reference: p.4–5; paras. 8–9

Under the principles stated in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, non-recovery of a ticket is not by itself conclusive against bona fide passenger status: the claimants must first place relevant facts and circumstances establishing bona fide travel, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim by cogent evidence.

Source reference: p.3; para. 6

The Court further relied on Smt. Sanju Devi & Anr. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3366, for the principle that, given the strict-liability and beneficial nature of Section 124-A, an exception to liability must be established through evidence and cannot rest merely on unsupported conclusions.

Source reference: p.4–5; para. 9
04

Reasoning

The Court held that the initial burden regarding bona fide travel was discharged through the testimony of AW-2, Umesh, who stated that he accompanied the deceased to Kasganj station, witnessed the purchase of the second-class ticket, and saw him off, as well as through AW-1 Reeta Devi’s evidence concerning the journey and ticket purchase.

Source reference: p.3–4; para. 6

The omission to mention in the claim application that the ticket had been purchased in AW-2’s presence was treated as a discrepancy concerning the detail of his testimony, not his identity, particularly since his name appeared in the claim application and the Railways led no oral rebuttal evidence.

Source reference: p.3–4; para. 6

On the nature of the incident, the Court found that the Station Master’s memo merely recorded that a dead body was lying “inside the track” and contained no eyewitness account of a run-over or trespass.

Source reference: p.4; para. 7

The DRM Report and other railway records only recorded the conclusion that the deceased had come in the “chapet” of a moving train; they did not establish, through independent evidence, how he came to be on the track.

Source reference: p.4; para. 7

The severe injuries and condition of the body were held insufficient, by themselves, to conclusively prove that the deceased was crossing the track rather than having fallen from the train and subsequently come under its wheels.

Source reference: p.4; para. 8

Since the alleged statutory exception was not proved and the legislation is beneficial in nature, the Court extended the benefit of the strict-liability framework to the appellants.

Source reference: p.4–5; para. 9
05

Holding

The Court answered both issues in favour of the appellants.

It held that Ravi Kant was a bona fide passenger and that his death constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989.

Source reference: p.5; para. 10

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 June 2025 was set aside.

Source reference: p.5; paras. 11–13

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

Source reference: p.5; paras. 11–13

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21 September 2026, and the appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Source reference: p.5; paras. 11–13
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19871

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Reeta Devi & Ors.vsUnion Of India

Delhi High Court · September 03, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment