Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
Rudal @ Rudal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
FAO 496 of 2017
Decided On : 15-05-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal, Advocate.
Provisions for accident compensation are beneficial and must be interpreted liberally. Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case of bona fide travel, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. The loss of a ticket does not automatically invalidate an injury compensation claim.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c) and 124-A - Compensation for injury - Accidental fall from train - Appellant sustained grievous injuries; right arm and leg amputated - Lower authority dismissed claim citing inconsistencies in past travel history - Appellate Court opined that adjudication must focus on the specific journey during which the accident occurred - Mere loss of journey ticket does not warrant automatic dismissal - Once claimant discharges initial burden regarding bona fide travel, the burden of proof shifts to the responding authority to rebut with cogent evidence - Beneficial legislation requires liberal interpretation. (Paras 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12)
(B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Absence of internal reports to refute the claimant's version results in the evidence remaining unrebutted - Appellate court must ensure decision-making is not based on peripheral discrepancies in unrelated events. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
An individual sustained severe injuries, resulting in two amputations, following an accidental fall from a train. The claim for compensation was dismissed by the lower tribunal, which questioned the legitimacy of the travel based on inconsistencies in the claimant's history of prior journeys and the absence of a physical ticket, which was lost during the incident.
Findings of Court:
The lower authority erred by fixating on previous travels rather than the incident at hand. The records, including medical documentation, confirmed the accidental nature of the injuries. The claimant sufficiently discharged the initial burden, and in the absence of evidence from the respondent to disprove the bona fide nature of the travel, the claim holds merit.
Issues: Whether a claim for injury compensation can be dismissed on the basis of missing travel documentation and discrepancies in external evidence regarding prior journeys when the claimant has established the main incident of injury.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions for accident compensation are beneficial and must receive a liberal interpretation. When a claimant provides enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of valid travel, the onus shifts to the respondent to provide evidence to the contrary. Losing a ticket does not preclude a claimant from seeking damages.
Result: Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the tribunal for compensation assessment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of jurisdictional appeal, factual allegations, and initial defense contentions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. judicial assessment of evidence and relevance regarding bona fide travel. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. application of the burden of proof shift and liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 4. decision to set aside the impugned order and remand for compensation assessment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 30.06.2017, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application no. OA (IIu) 173/2016, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking injury compensation came to be dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the claim application, are that on 08.05.2016, the appellant undertook a train journey initially from Mokhanwa to Lucknow on 07.05.2016, whereafter, the second journey was undertaken from Lucknow to Delhi. It was further stated that the appellant had to proceed to Badli, and for the said purpose, he undertook his 3rd journey from Delhi to Badli through an EMU train, which he boarded from Delhi Railway Station at about 1:30 am. It was claimed that when the train reached near Azadpur Station, the appellant suffered an accidental fall on account of a sudden jerk and he was thereafter removed to Sushruta Trauma Centre, where, on account of the injuries suffered, his right arm and right leg were amputated. The appellant further stated that owing to the said accident, his journey ticket was lost.
3. The respondent contested the claim and contended that the version of the appellant regarding his travel by the Sealdah Express is incorrect, since as per the TSR (Train Signal Record), the said train is only a biweekly train and comes to Delhi only on Tuesdays and Saturdays, whereas the alleged accident has taken place on a Sunday. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, therefore, seeks dismissal of the appeal by contending that the version of the injured was found improbable and tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application.
4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions and further referred to the documents including DD no. 4P, recorded on 08.05.2016 at about 2.30 AM. Further, reliance is placed on the statement of the injured recorded on the date of the accident by the GRP, as well as the MLC of the appellant, prepared at the Lok Nayak Hospital, which records that the injured was brought by the PCR with the alleged history of a railway traffic accident.
5. The Tribunal disbelieved the appellant’s claim of being a bona fide passenger and did not proceed to examine the issue as to whether the accident constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
6. This court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and has gone through the claim application, the documents as well as the evidence of the appellant placed on record.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal misdirected itself by referring and focusing upon the discrepancies in the version of the appellant relating to the previous two completed journeys undertaken by him. For the purpose of adjudicating the claim for injury compensation, the Tribunal ought to have confined its consideration to the 3rd journey undertaken by the appellant, during which the accidental fall is stated to have occurred.
8. Insofar as the subject journey from Delhi to Badli is concerned, the appellant consistently claimed that his journey ticket was lost in the accident suffered by him. In his affidavit by way of evidence, he categorically deposed that he had undertaken the journey after purchasing a valid journey ticket. The contemporane
