* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 12.03.2026 Pronounced on : 27.03.2026 Uploaded on : 27.03.2026 + FAO 77/2026 SUBHASH CHAND @ SUBHASH CHANDRA & ANR.

.....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Ms.

Maanya Saxena, Advocate Ms. Iram Majid, CGSC with Mr. Mohd. Suboor and Ms. Nasreen Khatoon, 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 30.10.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi,(hereinafter as the “Tribunal”) in Case No. OA/II(U)/DLI/744/2025, titled “Subhash Chand @ Subhash Chandra & Anr. v. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants on the ground that the that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the alleged incident did not amount to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out by the claimants, are that on 06.06.2024, one Sanju Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had purchased a journey ticket bearing No. UCC-37999149 for travelling from Tundla to Bharthana by EMU Train No. 04186. Due to heavy rush inside the train compartment, she was standing near the gate, upon the train reaching Bharthana Railway Station, she was unable to deboard. In the process of alighting, she accidentally fell from the train after the station, sustaining serious injuries. She died at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in declining to confer the status of a bona fide even though the ticket was produced by the father of the deceased which was verified by the Railway authorities. Learned counsel further contends that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the running train due to heavy rush, which indicates that the death occurred in an untoward incident.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that the alleged incident was not an accidental fall from the train but occurred due to the deceased having jumped from the moving train. It is contended that the record, including the Station Memo and DRM report, clearly indicates that information was received from a passenger that a girl had jumped from the moving train after it left Bharthana station. It is further submitted that no journey ticket was recovered during jamatalashi, and the ticket subsequently produced by the father of the deceased cannot be conclusively linked to the travel taken by deceased.

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

7. Vikas Kumar, Head Constable, RPF Post Etawah, stated that on 06.06.2024, during his duty at Bharthana Railway Station, the Station Master informed him that a girl had jumped from Train No. 04186 approximately 2 kms after departing from Bharthana Station. Upon receiving the information, he immediately proceeded towards the track. When they reached KM No. 1134/28, they found a girl lying at a distance of about 10-12 feet on the north side of the down track. Thereafter, the information was conveyed to the Station Master, Bharthana. The Station Master issued a memo to the Civil Police Station, Bharthana. During the search, a small bag was recovered from the spot, bearing the name “F-H College of Nursing, Etmadpur, Agra”.

8. The Post Mortem Report records that the deceased, died due to COMA antemortem head injury. The DRM Report concludes that the deceased was travelling in Train no. 04186 from Tundla to Bharthana. However, relying upon the Station Memo, it was further observed that the incident occurred due to the deceased allegedly jumping from the moving train between Bharthan