* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 18.03.2026 Pronounced on : 27.03.2026 Uploaded on : 27.03.2026 + FAO 173/2025 LAXMI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rohit Saraswat, Ms. Mansi Rose Taneja and Mr. Shaleen Bareja, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SPC (UOI), Mr. Amit Acharya, GP, Ms. Nupur Sharma, 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 against the judgment dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/86/2024.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased had committed suicide and was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the alleged incident an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 26.04.2023, one Sh. Sompal (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Haridwar to Moradabad on the strength of a valid journey ticket and while undertaking the said journey, he fell from the running train between Nagina and Puraini Railway Stations and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was run over by another train and died on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as is evident from the recovery of a valid journey ticket. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the said incident, and the finding of suicide is based on the testimony of the loco pilot, which is unreliable and suffers from material contradictions. It is further submitted that he, in his memo, did not state that the deceased had jumped in front of the train, and such assertion appears to have been introduced subsequently in his affidavit. Learned counsel further emphasized that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the nature of injuries is consistent with an accidental fall from a train, which squarely falls within the definition of an “untoward incident”.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by submitting that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping in front of a goods train, as recorded in the DRM report and the statement of the loco pilot. It is contended that the nature of injuries and the location of the incident clearly indicate that he was not travelling in the said train and had instead come onto the track. It is thus submitted that the case falls within the exception of self-inflicted injury or suicide under Section 124-A of the Act, and therefore, no compensation is payable.

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

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and, whether the alleged incident was an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

8. Insofar as the issue of bona fide passenger is concerned, it is an admitted position that a railway journey ticket bearing No. UAF 02392738 was recovered from the person of the deceased, and the same has been further reflected in the General Diary entries and the statutory investigation conducted by the Railways. The ticket was further verified from the booking office, confirming its issuance on 26.04.2023 at 19:53 hours. In view of the law laid down in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 1(2019) 3 SCC 572, once such material is brought on record, the burden shifts upon the railways to disprove bona fide travel. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and having regard to the recovery and verification of the journey ticket, this Court is of the view that the deceased would fall within the meaning of a bona fide passen