* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 11.02.2026 Pronounced on : 12.03.2026 Uploaded on : 12.03.2026 + FAO 300/2022 POONAM & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Mr. Mritunjay K. Singh and Ms. Prachi, 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 07.07.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi,(hereinafter as the “Tribunal”) in Case No. OA II(U)/84/2019, titled “Smt. Poonam & Ors. v. Union of India”. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants on the ground that the alleged incident did not amount to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)

of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out in the claim application, are that on 23.04.2018, one Navratan (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had purchased a journey ticket bearing No. 05823105 for travelling from Ajaibpur to Aligarh. It is the case of the appellants that while the deceased was attempting to board the train, there was heavy rush of passengers inside the compartment, as a result of which he was pushed and fell from the train, sustaining grievous injuries which proved fatal. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, where the post-mortem examination was conducted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in declining to confer the status of a bona fide passenger upon the deceased on the ground that the alleged incident had occurred prior to the commencement of the train journey. It is contended that once the validity of the journey ticket produced by the appellants stood established, the initial burden cast upon the appellants to prove the bona fide status of the deceased stood discharged, and the mere inability of the deceased to complete the train journey cannot defeat the claim of the appellants. Learned counsel further contends that the incident in question squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident”, inasmuch as the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train owing to a heavy rush inside the compartment. According to the appellants, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the death was caused due to a run-over is conjectural and unsupported by any evidence, as the mere fact that the body of the deceased was found on the up main line instead of the down line cannot lead to the conclusion that the deceased could not have fallen from the train. It is also contended that the timing of the alleged incident, as emerging from the record, is around 19:35 hrs, which broadly corresponds with the schedule of the train in question and lends credence to the appellants’ case that the death occurred due to an accidental fall from the train.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that the alleged incident was caused due to the deceased being run over by a train, and not on account of an accidental fall. It is contended that the record reflects that the body of the deceased was found lying on the up main line, whereas the train in question had arrived at the down loop line, both of which are situated at a considerable distance from each other. Reliance is also placed upon the DRM report, which attributes the cause of death to the negligence of the deceased, stating that he was unauthorisedly crossing the railway tracks and was eventually run over by a train.

6. This Court has heard arguments of both the parties and perused the material on record.

7. In backdrop of the above facts, the main issues arising for consideration before this Court are, whether the deceased was a bona fi