* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 05.02.2026 Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 Uploaded on : 20.02.2026 + FAO 271/2025 BASANT KUMAR SINGH & ANR ......Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. P.S. Singh (CGSC), Mr. M.K.

Singh and Ms. Shivangi Sharma 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 against the judgment dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in OA/II(U)/DLI/149/2024, whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants was dismissed.

2. The claim before the Tribunal arose out of the death of the appellants‟ son (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who was stated to have met with an accidental fall from a passenger train on 12.02.2024 between Anand Vihar Terminal and Sahibabad Jn. Railway station.

3. It was the case of the appellants before the Tribunal that on 12.02.2024, the deceased, had purchased a journey ticket bearing No. AAB 05972362 for undertaking a journey from Anand Vihar to Patna. He was travelling to Patna Junction from Anand Vihar Terminal by Jan Sadharan Express (Anand Vihar Terminal- Danapur), Train No. 13258. Due to heavy crowd in the compartment, he was standing near the gate of the coach. It was somewhere between Anand Vihar Terminal and Sahibabad Junction Railway Station, he was pushed by the crowd due to a sudden jerk and accidentally fell from the running train. As a result of the fall, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot.

4. The Tribunal held that the applicants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the incident constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter as the “Act”).

5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 accident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. It was further contended that the ticket was produced and verified, and, that AW-2‟s presence and statement narration stood corroborated by the Call Detail Records (CDR) and the employer‟s statement.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the claim on two principal grounds. Firstly, it was contended that no valid railway ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi of the deceased. Secondly, it was submitted that the body was found approximately 16 meters away from the DN line on which the train was travelling, thereby rendering the alleged fall improbable.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused through the record.

8. The ticket bearing No. AAB05972362, though not recovered during the jamatalashi proceedings, was subsequently produced during the course of investigation and subjected to verification in the DRM inquiry. The railway authorities confirmed the authenticity and validity of the said ticket. The DRM report concludes, on the basis of the evidence and statements of witnesses, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, though he was standing near the door of the compartment. It also notes that the Guard or Loco Pilot of the train concerned had no knowledge of the incident. It further notes that the occurrence was due to his own negligence and that the railway administration was not responsible for the accident

9. AW-2, Mr. Anwar Alam deposed that he had assisted the deceased in purchasing the ticket from the ATVM machine at Anand Vihar Terminal and that both of them together boarded Train No. 13258. He further deposed that owing to heavy crowd in the compartment, the deceased was compelled to stand near the door, and after the incident, he checked the bag of the deceased and