* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 25.02.2026 Pronounced on : 13.04.2026 Uploaded on : 13.04.2026 + FAO 270/2024 KIRAN DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.Arnav Mittal, Advocate 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 impugned judgment dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA II(u) No.

242/2023.

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 case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that on 13.03.2023, one Virendra Patel (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Ludhiana to Gorakhpur on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It was their case that, due to heavy rush in the train, he accidentally fell from the running train near Harthala Railway Station (District Moradabad), resulting in fatal injuries leading to his death.

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 incident in question did not fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident”. It was submitted that the deceased had undertaken a lawful journey and that the journey ticket was lost at the time of the accident. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 to contend that mere non-recovery of the journey ticket cannot be treated as conclusive proof against the claimants and that the initial burden stands discharged upon filing an affidavit, whereafter the onus shifts upon the Railways to rebut the same.

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 material on record. It was contended that no journey ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi of the deceased, whereas only a platform ticket of Ludhiana Railway Station was found, which casts serious doubt on the claim of bona fide travel. It was further submitted that the contemporaneous railway records, including the Station Master memo, DRM report and the statement of the loco pilot, do not support the version of accidental fall from a running train.

6. This Court has heard the arguments addressed on behalf of both the 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 appellant was a bona fide passenger and whether the injuries were sustained in an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

8. Insofar as the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger is concerned, it is an admitted position that no journey ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi conducted at the spot. On the contrary, the record indicates recovery of a platform ticket no. 54087412 of Ludhiana Railway Station from the possession of the deceased. Though, the said ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, but the place of incidence, Harthala, as per the claim petition, is about 461 km from his boarding station Ludhiana, whereas a platform ticket is valid only for 3 hours, and therefore, the presence of a platform ticket, coupled with the absence of any journey ticket or evidence of payment of fare, raises a serious doubt regarding the claim that the deceased