* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 03.02.2026 Pronounced on : 07.02.2026 Uploaded on : 09.02.2026 + FAO 275/2019 OMVIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky Pawar and Mr. Sainyam Bhardwaj, Advocates.

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 09.01.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) 186/2017, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking statutory compensation on account of injuries sustained in an untoward incident was dismissed.

2. The appellant, Omvir Singh, was the claimant before the Tribunal. He claims to have suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability while travelling as a passenger in a train belonging to the respondent– Railways. The claim petition was filed invoking the provisions of Sections

123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 25.10.2016, he was travelling from Ghaziabad to Anand Vihar Railway Station by Train No. 15059 (Lalkuan Express) after purchasing a journey ticket, which was claimed to be have been lost by him of a fare of approximately Rs.10/-. During cross-examination, the appellant stated that he could not recall whether the exact fare was Rs.9/-, Rs.9.50/- or Rs.10/-. It was pleaded that when the train reached Anand Vihar Railway Station and the appellant was in the process of de-boarding, due to sudden rush and imbalance, he slipped and fell between the train and the platform.

As a result of the said fall, he was removed to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi from where he was taken to Fortis Hospital, Delhi as the appellant sustained a severe crush injury to his left foot, which ultimately led to a traumatic amputation of his left leg below the knee. The appellant has also placed on record a Permanent Disability Certificate issued by the competent medical authority, certifying 65% permanent physical disability on account of the traumatic amputation of the left foot. The extent of permanent disability clearly demonstrates the grave and lasting impact of the injuries suffered by the appellant as a direct consequence of the incident.

4. The respondent did not examine any oral witness. The defense of the respondent was primarily founded on the DRM Report, which attributed the occurrence to the appellant’s own negligence and opined that the railway administration was not responsible for the incident.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal gravely erred in rejecting the claim solely on the ground of non-recovery of the journey ticket. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Bhola v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13486, to submit that a journey ticket, being a light object, could easily slip out of the pocket at the time of a fall from a train or be lost during such an incident and the non-availability of a ticket at the time of incident is not sustainable. It was submitted that minor discrepancies regarding the exact fare (Rs.9/-, Rs.9.50/- or Rs.10/-) are wholly inconsequential and cannot negate the appellant’s status as a bona fide passenger.

It was further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that even a passenger travelling on a valid general ticket in an express or superfast train is a bona fide passenger. In this regard, reliance was placed on Prabhu Dayal & Ors. v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3921. Learned counsel contended that once the factum of a fall from the train and resultant grievous injuries is established, the liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, is one of strict liability, and compe