* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 07.04.2026 Pronounced on : 08.04.2026 Uploaded on : 08.04.2026 + FAO 143/2025 CHOTI BETI .....Appellant Through: Ms. Ananya Mago, Mr. Kshitiz Jain and Mr. Rohan Chandra, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. PS Singh, CGSC with Ms.

Shivangi Sharma and Mr. Rajneesh 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 31.01.2025, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/107/2021.

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 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, as stated in the claim application, are that on 16.04.2012, the son of the appellant, Manoj Kumar Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), was travelling from Farrukhabad to Dariyaganj by Lucknow-Kasganj Passenger Train, on the strength of a valid second-class ticket, and while undertaking the said journey, he fell from the running train between Bhatasa and Kaimganj Railway Stations, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite sufficient evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and had suffered an accidental fall from a running train. It is submitted that although the journey ticket was not recovered during the panchnama, the same was subsequently produced on record. Learned counsel further submits that the panchnama and the post-mortem report clearly support the case of an accidental fall from a train, and even the DRM report records the same. It is further contended that the respondent neither verified the ticket, nor led any evidence to discredit the same, and therefore, the rejection of the claim is unsustainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident, and no information about the alleged incident was given by the guard or driver of any train. It is contended that the case does not fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under the Act, and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim.

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 issues that arise for consideration are that, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the incident in question falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

8. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the contemporaneous evidence on record lends consistent support to the case of the appellant. The panchnama dated 16.04.2012, records that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the railway track between Bhatasa and Kaimganj stations with severe mutilating injuries, including amputation of limbs. In the opinion of the panchas, which has also been concurred with by the Sub- Inspector, the death occurred due to the deceased being cut after falling from a train.The GD entry dated 16.04.2012, being the earliest record of the incident, also reflects that information regarding a railway accident involving the deceased was received in close proximity to the time of occurrence. The evidentiary value of such contemporaneous entry lies in its spontaneity and proximity to the incident. The post-mortem