$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6^th May, 2025 + FAO 295/2014 SMT. KANTA DEVI & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Krishna Kumar Sharma, SPC with Mr. Anil Devlal &

Mr. Pradeep Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Act, 1989 [“the Act”] filed by the appellants thereby assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi [“Tribunal”] whereby the claim for statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1923 [“RCT Act”] on account of death of Rohtash Sadhu was dismissed.

2. In a nutshell, the appellants, who are widow-wife and children of the deceased claimed that on 19.03.2011 the deceased left home at 8.30 a.m. to attend his duties and while returning home, he purchased a ticket from Sarai Rohilla Railway Sation to reach Gurgaon i.e. his native place and boarded the Delhi-Rewari Passenger Train at 8.25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 295/2014 Page 1 of 8 p.m. from platform No. 1. It was claimed that the general compartment was heavily crowded and the deceased could only get a standing space near the gate. It was claimed that there was a sudden jerk while the train was moving and due to the thrust from inside the train compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down out of a moving train and was caught between the train and the platform an died instantaneously. It was further claimed that the train ticket of the deceased was lost.

3. Suffice to state that the respondent/Northern Railways contested the petition and denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and it was denied that he died due to an ‘untoward incident’ on falling down from the train. Learned Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

“1. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the present claim application?

2. Whether the deceased Sh. Rohtash Sadhu S/o late Shri Rattan Lal was a bonafide passenger of Delhi-Rewari passenger train (train number not mentioned) from Sarai Rohilla to Gurgaon as on 19.3.2011?

3. Whether the death of Sh Rohtash Sadhu was caused due to an untoward incident as defined in Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

4. Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased Sh. Rohtash Sadhu and are entitled to get compensation as claimed? 5) Relief?”

4. The widow of the deceased came in the witness box and she was examined as AW-1 and she exhibited the documents as Ex.AW- 1/1 to AW-1/13. No evidence as produced by the respondent except for filing the DRM Report as Ex.R-1.

5. Suffice to state that the learned Tribunal held that the deceased Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 295/2014 Page 2 of 8 was not holding a valid railway ticket, and therefore, he was held not to be a bonafide passenger and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition, which go as under:

“In the present case, the specific plea of the applicants is that the deceased purchased a ticket and the same was lost. As observed supra, the applicants cannot have any personal knowledge of either the purchase or loss of the ticket by the deceased, as he was admittedly travelling alone arid not accompanied by any of the family members. The evidence on record shows that no ticket or pass was recovered from the person of the deceased though certain other similar items like visiting cards and identity cards were recovered. It is, therefore, not a case where there is any evidence of purchase and loss of the ticket, but it is only a case where