Delhi High Court
Laxmi & Anr vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 27.04.2026
Pronounced on : 02.05.2026
Uploaded on : 02.05.2026
+ FAO 126/2026
LAXMI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood,
Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Leela Vati Suman, SPC for UOI
with Mr. Amit Rana, GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
CM APPL. 28079/2026 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL. 28080/2026 (Seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in re-
filing the appeal)
1. By way of the present application, the applicants/appellants seek
condonation of delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay of
10 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of accordingly.
FAO 126/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 12.02.2026, passed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 126/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:21:05
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U) 686/2025, titled as
“Smt. Laxmi & Anr. vs. Union of India“.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
primarily on the ground that the incident in question was not an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act”) despite observing that a valid journey ticket was recovered,
and consequently, did not return any finding on the issue of bona fide travel.
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that
on 26.05.2023, one Sarvan (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”)
purchased a valid journey ticket for travelling from Delhi Jn. to Chandausi
Jn. During the course of the said journey, on the intervening night of
26/27.05.2023, owing to heavy rush and jostling near the gate of the
compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train near
Chandausi Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which
he died.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the contemporaneous record in its correct perspective. It
is submitted that the Station Master memo, statements of the loco pilot and
the gateman, as well as the panchnama proceedings and DRM report, when
read cumulatively, establish a consistent chain pointing towards an
“accidental fall” from the running train. It is further stated that the recovery
and verification of the journey ticket conclusively establish that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger and that the inference of a “run over” is based on
conjectures.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 126/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:21:05
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment and submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, no
specific train has been identified and the nature of injuries indicate towards a
case of “run over”, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the
case does not fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident”.
6. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material on record.
7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two questions that arise for
consideration are whether the incident in question constitutes as “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 Station Master memo clearly records that information regarding a “dead
body lying in Km No. 69/14 near the Aligarh side of the track” was received
in the early hours of 05.54 hours on 27.05.2023 through the keyman, Jaipal.
The timing of such information bears immediate proximity to the occurrence
and constitutes the earliest version of events, and there is nothing on record
to suggest that this information is either incorrect or has been subsequently
embellished.
9. The gateman’s statement forms part of the same chain of events and
corroborates that the information regarding the body was relayed in the
normal course of duty. Though the gateman is not an eyewitness to the fall,
the evidentiary value of such a statement lies in its contemporaneity and in
consistency with the official record. The Tribunal has failed to accord due
weight to this material and has instead proceeded to draw inferences not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 126/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:21:05
supported by the record.
Furthermore, the statement of the loco pilot records that the “dead
body was seen lying outside the track” at KM no. 69/14. Significantly, the
statement does not indicate that the deceased was seen walking on the track,
crossing the railway line, or otherwise present on the track prior to the
incident. In the absence of such indication, the inference drawn by the
Tribunal that the case was not that of an accidental fall is not supported by
any cogent evidence.
10. The panchnama proceedings further record that the deceased had
come into contact with a train and was found lying between the railway
tracks with face towards the ground, and body cut in two parts. The said
document, however, does not attribute the manner in which the deceased
“came into contact” with the train. It neither records that the deceased was
crossing the track nor does it rule out the possibility of a fall from a moving
train. The Tribunal has, thus, treated the panchnama as conclusively
establishing that it was not an accidental fall, which is not borne out from its
contents.
11. The Tribunal has further relied upon the absence of an eyewitness and
non-identification of a specific train, and this approach clearly reflects a
misapplication of the standard of proof. It is well recognised that in railway
accident cases, direct eyewitness testimony is often unavailable and the
occurrence is required to be inferred from surrounding circumstances, and
therefore, the absence of direct evidence cannot be treated as determinative.
12. Insofar as the DRM report is concerned, a perusal thereof shows that
it records recovery of a valid journey ticket bearing No. UAF 95979130
from the person of the deceased and confirms that the body was found near
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 126/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:21:05
Km No. 69/14, and the report does not establish any alternative manner of
occurrence. It does not record that the deceased was crossing the track, nor
does it attribute the incident to suicide, criminal act or trespass. The mere
fact that no specific train could be identified does not negate the occurrence
of an “untoward incident”, and the Tribunal has, thus, misread the DRM
report by treating it as discrediting the case of the appellants. There is also
no material on record to bring the case within any of the statutory exceptions
such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or criminal act. In the absence of such
material, the liability of the Railways cannot be avoided.
At this stage, it is apposite to note that once an “untoward incident” is
established, the liability of railways under Section 124-A is strict in nature,
unless the case falls within the statutory exceptions (Ref: Union of India vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1)
13. Insofar as the issue of bonafide travel is concerned, the recovery of
the journey ticket bearing No. UAF 95979130 during the inquest
proceedings constitutes as direct and unimpeached evidence of the
deceased’s travel from Delhi to Chandausi. The said recovery is duly
reflected in the panchnama as well as in the DRM report, and the ticket has
also been duly verified by the railway authorities.
14. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Union of India vs. Rina Devi2,
wherein it has been held as under:
“Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by
filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on
the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the
attending circumstances.”
1
(2008) 9 SCC 527
2
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 126/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:21:05
In the present case, not only the initial burden has been discharged, but there
exists direct documentary evidence in the form of recovery and verification
of the journey ticket, which remains unchallenged. The respondent has not
disputed the genuineness of the ticket nor produced any material to show
that it did not belong to the deceased and the Tribunal has also failed to
return a clear finding on this aspect. In such circumstances, the status of the
deceased as a bona fide passenger stands duly established.
15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the death of the
deceased occurred in the course of a railway accident and falls within the
definition of an “untoward incident”, and the contrary finding returned by
the Tribunal is based on misappreciation of evidence and cannot be
sustained.
16. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the
amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law
and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months
from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed
before the Tribunal at the first instance on 13.05.2026.
17. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
18. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 02, 2026
kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 126/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:21:05
