* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 09.02.2026 Pronounced on : 11.02.2026 Uploaded on : 11.02.2026 + FAO 61/2020 SUJIT KUMAR & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima and Ms.

Megha Sood Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Mahapatra and Mr. Tribhuvan, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr. Abhimanyu, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the judgment dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in OA (IIu) No. 169/2018, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking statutory compensation on account of the death of Late Shri Chandeshwar Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was dismissed.

2. The appellants are the widow and children of the deceased. The claim application before the Tribunal was filed invoking the provisions of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. The facts stated by the appellants before the Tribunal was that on 17.01.2018, the deceased had purchased a journey ticket bearing No. m- 43449854 at 15:35 hours for travel from Tughlakabad to Shakur Basti. While travelling on the said journey, the deceased accidentally fell from a running train between Daya Basti and Shakur Basti, resulting in fatal injuries. The body of the deceased was subsequently discovered in the intervening night of 17/18.01.2018. It was further stated that the aforesaid facts were based on the information received from the GRP.

4. It was contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, travelling on a valid journey ticket, and that his death was caused due to an accidental fall from a train, constituting an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the recovery of the journey ticket from the person of the deceased during jamatalashi, the contemporaneous records, and the medical evidence.

5. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was held that the journey ticket was purchased on 17.01.2018 at 15:30 hrs. Since the journey was for a distance of less than 200 kilometres, with a prescribed journey time within two hours, in the normal course, the deceased would have reached the destination by 18:30 hrs. The body of the deceased, however, was discovered at 01:30 hrs on 18.01.2018 by the keyman, which, according to the Tribunal, indicated that the death had occurred around the time of discovery of the body. The Tribunal further observed that as per Post Inquest Report, the face was crushed and as such, the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased was inconsistent with the claim of an accidental fall from a train.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment by submitting that the Tribunal had adopted a hyper-technical and speculative approach, ignoring the settled principles governing claims under the Act. It was submitted that the recovery of the journey ticket from the person of the deceased during jamatalashi conclusively established his bona fide status. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal erred in drawing medical inferences on its own and in shifting the burden of proof onto the appellants, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in Union of India v. Leela Devi & Ors, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1440

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellants had failed to explain the delay in discovery of the body and the exact circumstances of the fall.

8. Up