* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 25.03.2026 Pronounced on : 16.04.2026 Uploaded on : 16.04.2026 + FAO 352/2014 RAJLI DEVI .....Appellant Through: Mr. NK Gupta, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC 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 17.01.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA II(u)

No. 521/2011, titled as “Smt. Rajli Devi vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant 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 24.09.2011, one Sh. Sanjay Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Nawada to Delhi by Train No. 12815 (Neelanchal Express), on the strength of a valid second-class ticket. It is the case of the appellant that due to heavy rush and jostling of passengers in the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell on the platform of Gaya Junction, and sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in his death.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite the material available on record clearly establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had died in an “untoward incident”. It is submitted that the journey ticket bearing No. F-79225103 was recovered and stands corroborated by the inquest proceedings, and therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are unsustainable. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contemporaneous railway record, including the memo issued by the Station authorities at the earliest point of time, which clearly indicates that an injured person was found within the railway premises, thereby supporting the case of an accidental fall from a train. It is further contended that the Tribunal has placed undue reliance on alleged inconsistencies in the statements of the claimant, while ignoring the settled position that minor discrepancies cannot override documentary and contemporaneous evidence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that no reliable proof of journey was produced and that the claim of accidental fall is not supported by any eyewitness account. It is further contended that there are material inconsistencies in the version put forth by the appellant, which cast serious doubt on the manner of occurrence. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and returned findings of fact, which do not call for interference.

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 that whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the alleged incident was an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

8. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the Station Master’s memo dated 25.09.2011 records that an intimation regarding an “unconscious person” lying within the railway premises, near the “First Aid Counter”, was relayed to the GRP, and such information being the earliest account of the incident, establishes that the injured person was found within the precincts of the railway station. The GRP proceedings also proceed on the basis that the deceased had sustained injuries within the railway premises and thereafter, he succumbed to the same. Subsequently, the “Report of Untoward Incident” further records