Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
SMT. RAJKUMARI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
FAO-352/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kshitiz Jain, Rohan Chandra, Ananya Mago
For the Respondents: Vinay Yadav, Vipul Kumar

In railway accident claims, non-recovery of ticket and delay in body discovery are not conclusive; initial burden on claimant shifts to Railways to rebut; beneficial legislation must be liberally construed.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124-A - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Untoward incident - Bona fide passenger - Burden of proof - Non-recovery of ticket not conclusive - Delay in recovery of body not determinative - Beneficial legislation - Liberal construction - Initial burden on claimant can be discharged by affidavit and circumstances; thereafter burden shifts to Railways to rebut - Mere non-recovery of ticket cannot defeat claim - Delay in body discovery does not, by itself, negate accidental fall - Testimony of witness with minor inconsistencies cannot be discarded if substratum consistent - Belated inquiry lacking contemporaneous basis has little evidentiary value. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 15, 16)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court not to substitute its view unless lower court’s decision is perverse or illegal - Hyper-technical approach and undue reliance on conjectural material deprecated. (Paras 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The deceased had gone to Aligarh to visit his sister for Raksha Bandhan and was returning by train. While the train was in motion, he allegedly fell accidentally and died on spot. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the incident an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal relied on the facts that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the body was found hours later. It also disbelieved the witness who deposed that he had accompanied the deceased and got the ticket purchased, citing minor discrepancies and interest.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the contemporaneous material (inquest proceedings, post-mortem report) consistently indicated accidental fall from train. The DRM report, prepared after five years, lacked evidentiary value. Delay in noticing the body during night hours cannot lead to an adverse inference. The testimony of the witness, though with peripheral inconsistencies, was credible on the core fact of ticket purchase and journey. The presence of a Rakhi on the deceased corroborated the travel story. Since the initial burden was discharged by the appellants, the Railways failed to rebut it. The Tribunal adopted an unduly rigid standard, ignoring the beneficial object of the Act.

Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the incident constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, and (ii) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.(Para 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once the claimant discharges the initial burden of proving an untoward incident and being a bona fide passenger (e.g., by affidavit and surrounding circumstances), the onus shifts to the Railways to show that the case falls within statutory exceptions. Non-recovery of a ticket is not fatal to the claim. Delay in recovery of the body, especially during night, does not disprove accidental fall. Minor discrepancies in witness testimony over time do not justify discarding the entire version. Beneficial legislation must be construed liberally to provide prompt relief to accident victims. Result : Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside. Matter remanded to Tribunal to assess compensation and disburse within two months. (Paras 17, 18)

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 79947/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 352/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/265/2024.

2. Vide the impugned 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 16.08.2019, one Sh. Devendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had gone to Aligarh to visit his sister for the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and was returning therefrom by Train No. 54461 from Aligarh to Dibai Railway Station. It is the case of the appellants that while the train was in motion between Rajghat Naraura and Dibai Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train during the night hours and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which he died on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in disregarding the contemporaneous material on record, as the GRP proceedings and the inquest material consistently indicate that the deceased was found “lying near the railway track” and had sustained fatal injuries in a railway accident. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report records ante-mortem injuries which are consistent with the case of accidental fall from a moving train. It is also contended that the Tribunal has wrongly discarded the testimony of Chandra Pal Singh, who had specifically deposed that he had accompanied the deceased to Aligarh Railway Station and had got the journey ticket purchased for his travel. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in drawing adverse inference from the timing of recovery of the body and in holding that the body remaining unnoticed for some time goes against the case of accidental fall.

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 during jamatalashi and, therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that as per the DRM report, there was no report of any “untoward incident” by the loco pilot of Train No. 54461. It is also contended that the statements recorded during investigation, including that of the claimant, indicate that no ticket was found and that the circumstances of the incident remain unestablished.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration are whether the incident in question constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act and whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

8. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the contemporaneous material on record does not support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal. The record reflects that the information regarding the dead body was received in the early hours of 17.08.2019, whereafter the deceased was found lying near the railway track at KM No. 124/08-09, between Rajghat Naraura and Dibai. The inquest proceedings record that the deceased was found “adjacent to the track” with injuries, and there is no material to indicate that the deceased was “run over” while crossing the railway line. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is not borne out from the record.

9. The Tribunal has, however, proceeded to rely upon the DRM report dated 24.06.2024 to conclude that the occurrence took place in an “unknown

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManoj Kumar Ohri, JSMT. RAJKUMARI & ORS. – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA – RespondentFAO-352/2025

In railway accident claims, non-recovery of ticket and delay in body discovery are not conclusive; initial burden on claimant shifts to Railways to rebut; beneficial legislation must be liberally construed.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
SMT. RAJKUMARI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
FAO-352/2025