* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 27.03.2026 Pronounced on : 18.04.2026 Uploaded on : 18.04.2026 + FAO 98/2018 SUSHEELA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Ms. Priya Dwivedi, 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 20.12.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/0096/2015, titled as “Susheela & Ors. vs. 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 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 26.10.2014, one Aman (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Bahadurgarh to Nangloi by Janta Express Train on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It was the appellants’ case that upon arrival at Nangloi Railway Station, due to heavy rush inside the compartment, the deceased suffered a fall from the train owing to a sudden jerk, resulting in fatal injuries. He was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where he died during the course of his treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contemporaneous material on record which clearly establishes that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a railway accident. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in discarding the testimony of the appellants’ witnesses on the basis of minor discrepancies relating to dates and ancillary facts. It is contended that such discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter and are wholly immaterial in the face of consistent documentary evidence establishing the occurrence of a railway accident.

He further submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is legally unsustainable, inasmuch as the mere non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot be treated as determinative factor to deny the claim. Reliance is placed on the settled position in “Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 ”

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and that there are inconsistencies in the testimony of the appellants’ witnesses. It is submitted that the said factors cast doubt on the case set up by the appellants and justify the findings returned by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the DRM report, prepared in the course of official inquiry, records that the incident did not occur on account of accidental fall from a train but under circumstances attributable to the self- negligent conduct of the deceased. It is contended that in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove bona fide travel, and in view of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the appellants’ witnesses, the claim has been rightly rejected.

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 contemporaneous evidence on record clearly lends support to the appellants’ version. The earliest information, as reflected from the DD No. 14PP dated 26.10.2014, recorded th