* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28.01.2026 % Pronounced on: 11.03.2026 Uploaded on: 11.03.2026 + FAO No. 240/2021 JAIPAL YADAV .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal and Mr. Vivan Garg, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubra Parashar and Mr. Gaurav Khosla, 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, 1989 assailing the judgment dated 16.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA-II(u)/DLI/305/2019.

2. The case of the appellant, as set out in the claim application filed before the Tribunal, is that on 28.09.2019 at about 5-5.30 pm, he had purchased a general journey ticket bearing No. UAC-39504166 for travel from Taj Nagar to Rewari and had boarded the Old Delhi-Rewari Passenger Train bearing No. 54417. According to the appellant, the train was overcrowded and while he was standing near the entrance of the compartment, a sudden thrust from passengers caused him to lose balance and fall from the moving train. As a result of the fall, the appellant allegedly sustained grievous injuries including a crush injury to his left leg, deformity in the right knee and head injuries with lacerations over the scalp and forehead. He was initially taken to Sunrise Hospital, Gurugram where his MLC was prepared, and was thereafter treated at Artemis Hospital, Gurugram. The appellant also claims to have handed over the said journey ticket to the GRP officials at Pataudi Road, Gurugram.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal rejected the claim application of the appellant, Jaipal Yadav, on the ground that he was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal observed that the journey ticket produced by the appellant bearing Ticket No. UAC-39504166, upon verification, was found to have been issued from Gurugram a day prior i.e., on 27.09.2019, whereas the alleged incident had occurred on 28.09.2019. The ticket was also stated to be valid for only 3 hours. The Tribunal further held that the appellant had failed to establish that he had sustained injuries in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter as the “Act”) , as neither the guard of the train nor the ticket-vending official had any information regarding such incident and no eye-witness account was forthcoming.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment by submitting that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger, particularly when the appellant had produced the journey ticket bearing No. UAC-39504166 and had relied upon the same during his deposition before the Tribunal. It is contended that the said ticket had in fact been issued on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. 28.09.2019. It is further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the appellant‟s case of accidental fall from the train is misplaced, as the same overlooks the records of the GRP, Pataudi Road, which contain information regarding the incident as well as the subsequent treatment of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the concerned GRP official had also visited the appellant at Artemis Hospital during the course of the investigation, thereby lending credence to the sequence of events narrated by the appellant. Reliance is also placed on the MLC and the disability certificate of the appellant to highlight the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by him, which ultimately resulted in amputation and permanent disability. It is additionally contended that the appellant did not get an opportunity to cross- examine the railway personnel whose statements were relied upon by the Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on Raj Kumari Devi & Ors. v. Union of