Delhi High Court
Susheela & Anr vs Union Of India on 18 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 98/2018 Page 1 of 5
Signing Date:18.04.2026
16:57:27
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 Devi1“.
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
1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 98/2018 Page 2 of 5
Signing Date:18.04.2026
16:57:27
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 that an “injured boy” was found at Platform No. 2, Nangloi
Railway Station and was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. The
MLC prepared at the said hospital records the history of a “train accident”,
and the post-mortem report also records multiple ante-mortem injuries,
including cranio-cerebral damage, and opines that the injuries are due to the
“alleged train accident”. The death certificate also records the cause of death
arising out of injuries sustained in a “railway accident”. The said record,
prepared contemporaneously and in close proximity to the incident,
consistently records that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a “railway
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 98/2018 Page 3 of 5
Signing Date:18.04.2026
16:57:27
accident” and constitutes material evidence which cannot be disregarded.
9. The Tribunal has, however, relied upon the DRM report which has
held that the deceased died due to his own “self-negligence”. A perusal of
the said report shows that the conclusion recorded therein is not based on
any direct or eyewitness account but is drawn from a mere inference, and
therefore, does not displace the consistent position emerging from the DD
entry, MLC, post-mortem report and other contemporaneous record, all of
which describe the incident as a “railway accident”. In the absence of any
cogent material to show that the case falls within the case of “trespass” or
“self-negligence” or, any of the statutory exceptions, the incident would
squarely fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the Act.
10. Coming now to the issue of bona fide travel, this Court finds that the
appellants have discharged the initial burden cast upon them. It has been
consistently asserted in the claim application and in the affidavit of Sh.
Madan Lal, AW-1 that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket
from Bahadurgarh and had boarded the train. The said assertion stands
supported by the deposition of AW-2 (Omkar Singh), who further deposed
that the deceased was accompanied by him up to the railway station, from
where he boarded the train for Nangloi. In this regard, the position in Rina
Devi (supra) is apposite, wherein it has been held that an affidavit asserting
purchase of a valid ticket is sufficient to discharge the initial burden,
whereafter the onus shifts upon the Railways. The mere non-recovery of the
ticket, particularly when it is the case of the appellants that the same was lost
during the incident, cannot be treated as determinative.
11. Insofar as the discrepancies noted by the Tribunal in the testimony of
AW-1 and AW-2 are concerned, the same relate to aspects such as the date,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 98/2018 Page 4 of 5
Signing Date:18.04.2026
16:57:27
the role of the accompanying relative, and the sequence of events prior to
the journey. These inconsistencies, as borne out from the record, do not have
any bearing on the manner of occurrence of the incident. The affidavit
furnished by AW-1 and the deposition of AW-2 when read as a whole,
consistently support the case that the deceased had boarded the train and
sustained injuries in the course of such travel. The discrepancies pointed out
are, therefore, immaterial and do not affect the core of the appellants’ case.
12. Equally significant is the fact that the respondent has failed to bring
on record any material to rebut the case set up by the appellants.
13. 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 04.05.2026.
14. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
15. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
APRIL 18, 2026
kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 98/2018 Page 5 of 5
Signing Date:18.04.2026
16:57:27