* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 29.01.2026 Pronounced on : 26.02.2026 Uploaded on : 26.02.2026 + FAO 112/2021 SMT. USHA DEVI AND ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment/order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi titled as ‘Smt. Usha Devi & Ors. v.

Union of India’.

2. Vide the judgment dated 21.05.2019 in Case no. OA- IIu/GZB/2017/144, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the alleged incident was not an “untoward incident” as defined under Section

123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). Subsequently, a review application was filed by the claimant which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2019 in Review/GZB/2019/15/OA/GZB on the grounds that the absence of counsel due to strike and the alleged improper appreciation of evidence did not constitute an error warranting review, and that the remedy available to the appellants was to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum.

3. Vide order dated 29.01.2026, this Court noted that there was no representation on behalf of the respondent for the last few dates, and in this backdrop, the Court proceeded to hear arguments on behalf of the appellants. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out by the appellants, are that on 09.03.2017, one Amrendra Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Haridwar to Patna by Upasna Express with a valid general ticket bearing No. H-28434390. During the journey, the deceased accidentally fell at KM No. 1367/2 (between Rampur and Shahzad Nagar) due to a jerk in the train. He sustained grievous injuries to vital parts of his body, and succumbed to the same at the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgement by contending firstly, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and secondly, that the alleged incident qualifies as an “untoward incident”. It is submitted that the deceased was travelling on a valid railway ticket which was recovered during the inquest proceedings, recorded in the Panchayatnama, and duly verified by the Chief Booking Supervisor and that the Tribunal erred in disregarding such recovery and wrongly insisted upon verification from CRIS. It is further submitted that the deceased due to sudden jerk and heavy rush accidentally fell from the train between Rampur and Shahzad Nagar and sustained multiple grievous injuries.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the Tribunal framed issues for adjudication, namely, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the relevant time, and whether the alleged incident amounts to an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

8. It is noted that the inquest report clearly notes that a valid railway journey ticket bearing No. H-28434390 dated 08.03.2017 for travel from Haridwar to Patna was recovered from the deceased. The said ticket was thereafter duly verified by the Chief Booking Supervisor, Haridwar, after a request was made, who certified that the ticket had been issued from Counter No. 1 by Sh. Dinesh Kumar, SBC, thereby affirming its genuineness. Once the recovery of the ticket from the deceased and its subsequent verification by the Railways stood established on record,. the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger stood discharged, and the onus shifted upon the respondent to rebut the same by cogent evidence, which they failed to do(Ref: Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572).

9. Further, the copy of the Station Master Daily Diary, Rampur dated 09.03.2017, clearly corrobor