FAO 51/2020 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 10.08.2026 Pronounced on : 17.08.2026 Uploaded on : 17.08.2026 + FAO 51/2020 SH. BHURA LAL & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar Shisodia, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Mr.Tribhuvan, Ms.Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr.Abhimanyu, 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 24.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/GZB/212/2017 “Sh. Bhura Lal&Anr. vs. Union of India”. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that on the intervening night of 27/28.11.2016, one Shailesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Aligarh to Allahabad by Train Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 51/2020 no. 12304, (Delhi–Howrah Poorva Express) and owing to heavy rush in the coach, he was compelled to stand near the wash-basin situated adjacent to the coach door. While the train was passing through the signal of Ruma Railway Station, the deceased fell from the train due to a violent jerks and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The journey ticket is stated to have been lost during the incident. 3. Vide the impugned judgment, although the Tribunal held that the alleged incident qualified as an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), it howeverdismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased was not bona fide passenger. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the deceased not being a bona fide passenger. Reliance is placed on the decision of “Union of India v. Rina Devi”1 where it is held that a mere absence of a ticket on the person of the deceased does not negative the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The respondents failed to lead any oral evidence and placed reliance only on a belated DRM Report. The Tribunal’s assumption that the deceased was required to report at Kanpur and therefore could not have been travelling to Allahabad is purely conjectural and contrary to the unrebutted evidence of the examined witnesses. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the no valid journey ticket or 1(2019) 3 SCC 572 Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 51/2020 travel authority from Aligarh to Allahabad was neither recovered nor produced. The applicants’ claim that the ticket was lost at the site remains unsubstantiated. Official records establish that the deceased, an Assistant Loco Pilot under training, was on headquarter leave ending on 27.11.2016 and was required to report at the Training Institute, Kanpur on 28.11.2016. The evidence of AW-2/Lalit Kumar was introduced belatedly and is unreliable. 6. At the outset, it may be noted that the Tribunal has already returned a categorical finding that the deceased died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act. The said finding was based on the DRM Report and the inquest proceedings, which recorded that the deceased fell from the running train and sustained fatal injuries. The said finding has not been challenged by the respondent and has, therefore, attained finality. 7. The controversy in the present appeal is, therefore, confined to the issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident. 8. A bare perusal of the record would show that although no ticket was either recovered nor produced, however, it is well settled that mere non-recovery of a ticket cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive against the claim of bona fide passenger status (Ref: Rina Devi (supra). This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in “Lata v. Union of India”, which further clarified that the initial burden of the claimant can be discharged by way of an affidavit, and that the mere absence of a recovered ticket does not alter the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger, particularly Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 51/2020 when there is no denial of the fact of travel or of the occurrence of the incident and the case does not fall within any of the statutory exceptions. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, AW-1/Sh. Bhura Lal, father of the deceased, has categorically deposed that the deceased was travelling from Aligarh to Allahabad on a the strength of valid journey ticket. More importantly, AW- 2/Sh. Lalit Kumar, brother of the deceased has categorically stated that he accompanied the deceased to the Aligarh railway station where the deceased purchased a ticket for Allahabad. Both these witnesses have been consistent with their testimony during cross- examination, however, the testimony of AW-2 assumes significance as he had accompanied the deceased to the station and witnessed the purchase of the ticket. 9. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal’s assumption that the deceased was required to report at the Training Institute, Kanpur on 28.11.2016 and therefore could not have been travelling to Allahabad is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of AW-2. The requirement to report at Kanpur, by itself, does not rule out the deceased having travelled to Allahabad before reporting at Kanpur. 10. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the viewthatthe testimony of AW-2 regarding the purchase of the journey ticket, coupled with the evidence of AW-1, establishes the deceased’s bonafide passenger status. Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 51/2020 11. 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 07.09.2026. 12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 13. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal. (MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE AUGUST 17, 2026 na By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14