* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 13.02.2026 Pronounced on : 01.04.2026 Uploaded on : 01.04.2026 + FAO 156/2023 SUMAN DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Yash Basoya, Nr. Rakshit Tyagi and Mr.Kunal Dixit, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), in Case No. OA/II(u)/DLI/198/2019, titled as Smt. Suman Devi & Ors. v. Union of India. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor the alleged accident an “untoward incident” as defined under 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 23.07.2018, one Bijender Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had boarded a passenger train from Maripat Railway Station for travelling to Ghaziabad on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It was their case that, due to heavy rush in the train, he accidentally fell between Maripat and Ghaziabad Railway Stations and died on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment, contending that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim application by holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not the result of an “untoward incident”. It was submitted that the appellants deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket, which was lost at the time of the incident. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 to contend that mere non-recovery of a ticket cannot be determinative of being a bona fide passenger.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim in view of the inconsistencies in the case set up by the appellants. It was submitted that no journey ticket was recovered during jamatalashi and the explanation regarding its loss is unconvincing. It was further contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had boarded any train and the circumstances on record render the version of accidental fall wholly improbable. It was also submitted that there exists a considerable time gap between the alleged incident and the receipt of information, which further weakens the case of the appellants.

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

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

8. Concededly, no journey ticket was recovered during jamatalashi and nothing was recovered from the body of the deceased. The explanation offered by the appellants was that the ticket was kept in a bag which was subsequently lost, however, no evidence was led to substantiate the purchase of such ticket. The only evidence in support of the travel is the affidavit of Jeetu Sagar, AW-1, the son of the deceased, who admitted that he had neither witnessed the purchase of the ticket nor the boarding of the train by the deceased, thus, his testimony rests upon inference rather than direct knowledge. Moreover, the appellants have failed to disclose or identify the train allegedly boarded by the deceased, thereby rendering the entire version of travel unsubstantiated.

9. Further, the deposition of AW-1 also indicates that the village of th