$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 09^th May, 2025 + FAO 127/2017 RAM BABU & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Krishna, Sr. Panel Counsel.

Mr. Krishan, Adv. for Revisionist.

CORAM:

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

1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal preferred by the appellants, being the widower and minor children of the deceased Harbati, filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [‘RCT Act’], assailing the judgment-cum-award dated 19.05.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, learned Railway Claims Tribunal [‘RCT’], Delhi, whereby their claim for the statutory amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of Smt. Harbati, the wife and mother of the appellants, in a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 127/2017 Page 1 of 8 railway accident on 15.06.2013, was dismissed.

2. In a nutshell, the case of the claimants was that the deceased, Smt. Harbati, was travelling from Ajhai to Banchari Railway Station in an EMU train on 15.06.2013; and that her journey ticket had been purchased by her husband from Ajhai Railway Station. It was claimed that due to heavy rush in the train, when it reached KM No. 1456/23- 25 between Solaka Railway Station and Hodal, Haryana, Smt. Harbati, who was standing near the gate, fell out from the moving train owing to a sudden jerk and the overcrowded conditions, and sustained fatal injuries. It was further stated that the incident was reported to the police and was registered at GRP, Palwal, Haryana, vide DD No. 4 dated 15.06.2013, and the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at District Hospital, Palwal, Haryana.

3. The respondent/railways contested the claim petition and in their written statement it was claimed that the deceased was neither a bona-fide passenger nor she was a victim of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, [123 [(c) “untoward incident” means—]

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3)

of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]

124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.—When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 127/2017 Page 2 of 8

4. The defence of the respondent/Railways was that the deceased did not sustain injuries as a result of a fall from the train or due to crush injuries; rather, her body was found amputated in three parts, indicating that she was apparently run over by an unknown train while allegedly crossing the railway tracks illegally.

5. During the course of the enquiry, the appellant/husband of the deceased entered the witness box and was examined as AW-1.

6. Suffice it to state that the learned Tribunal found that no railway/journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased. Although it appeared that she died due to injuries sustained in a train accident, the Tribunal concluded that the incident occurred as a result of h