* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 13.02.2026 Pronounced on : 16.02.2026 Uploaded on : 16.02.2026 + FAO 237/2022 GURUVACHAN SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant, being the claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter “the Tribunal”), is aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim application vide the impugned judgment dated

29.03.2022 passed in Case No. OA(IIu)/DLI(LKO)/275/ 2021.

2. The claim application came to be filed in the context of an incident wherein one Sh. Shahvanshee (since deceased), aged 82 years, undertook a train journey on 10.06.2015 from Etawah to Shikohabad on Kanpur-Tundla Passenger Train. It was claimed that while travelling in the said train, the deceased fell from the train near Jaswantnagar Railway Station and suffered fatal injuries. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor had he died in an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter “the Act”).

3. Assailing the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the decision in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, contended that though no train ticket was recovered, the claim application was accompanied by an affidavit of the son of the deceased, wherein the material facts had been duly stated. Further, the incident had occurred between Jaswantnagar Railway Station and Balrai Railway Station, and the first information about the incident was duly recorded in the Memo issued by the Station Master, Balrai Railway Station, to the effect that the body of a person had been discovered by the Railway Keyman on 10.06.2015 at KM 1179/20-1179/22. The postmortem of the deceased was also conducted on the very same day. It is thus submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident resulting in his death was an “untoward incident”, which the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, while disputing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the deceased had undertaken an unlawful travel. He argued that the fact that the dead body in the present case was found between two railway lines belies the claim of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. Pertinently, though no journey ticket was recovered, the claim application was duly accompanied by the affidavit of the appellant/Guruvachan Singh, the son of the deceased. He deposed that he had accompanied his father to the Etawah Railway Station where, in his presence, a journey ticket was purchased, and his father boarded the Kanpur-Tundla Train. He further stated that the train was overcrowded and his father was forced to undertake the journey while standing at the door of the coach. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has been able to discharge his initial burden by stating the aforesaid facts, in terms of the decision in Rina Devi (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-

“29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal pos