* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 09.02.2026 Pronounced on : 10.02.2026 Uploaded on : 10.02.2026 + FAO 439/2019 DAYAWATI & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima and Ms.

Megha Sood Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman (CGSC) with Mr.

Akash Mishra, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) 207/2018, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking statutory compensation on account of the death of Late Shri Babu Singh (hereinafter as the „deceased‟)

in an untoward incident was dismissed.

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

3. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that on the intervening night of 15/16.06.2018, the deceased was travelling from Gorakhpur to New Delhi after purchasing a valid journey ticket bearing No. UEN-81534152 dated 15.06.2018. When the train in which the deceased was travelling reached Anand Vihar Railway Station, and while he was in the process of de-boarding, he accidentally fell from the train and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately removed to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi, where he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment.

4. The appellants contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling from Gorakhpur to New Delhi on a valid journey ticket. It was submitted that he accidentally fell from Train No. 13119 (Sealdah Express) at Platform No.1, Anand Vihar Railway Station while de-boarding, resulting in his death. Reliance was placed on contemporaneous records, including railway and police documents and the recovery of the journey ticket, to establish lawful travel and an untoward incident. The statement of the wife of the deceased was relied upon only to reflect the last communication regarding the deceased‟s movement towards Delhi.

5. The respondent contested the claim primarily on the basis of the DRM report and contended that since the deceased was found to have fallen from Train No. 13119 (Sealdah Express), which neither originates from Gorakhpur nor terminates at New Delhi, he could not be treated as a bona fide passenger.

6. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that although the factum of a fall from Train No. 13119 at Anand Vihar Railway Station stood established, the appellants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as, according to the Tribunal, the journey ticket from Gorakhpur to New Delhi was not “compatible” with the train from which the deceased fell. On this reasoning alone, the claim petition was dismissed. The Tribunal relied solely on the DRM report.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach in rejecting the claim, despite the contemporaneous material on record. It was submitted that the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellants established both the occurrence of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act and the bona fide status of the deceased. Learned counsel argued that the journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during jamatalashi and was also subsequently verified by the Railways through CRIS, thereby lending corroboration to the appellants‟ case of lawful travel. According to the appellants, once lawful travel and the occurrence of an untoward incident stood established, the liability under Section 124-A o