FAO 123/2022 * 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 123/2022 REKHA MITTAL & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar Shisodia, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC with Mr. Aman Kr. Pandey and Mr. Pradeep Sharma, 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 07.02.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/GZB/2016/170. 2. Briefly stated, the claim application came to be filed in the context of the death of one Sh. Ravinder Kumar Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), who, on 08.06.2016, was travelling from Muzaffarnagar to Naya Ghaziabad Railway Station by Train No. 14646 (Shalimar Express Train) on the strength of a valid Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 123/2022 journey ticket. It was further averred that due to push and pull of passengers in the train, the deceased accidentally fell from the train and died on the spot. 3. The Tribunal rejected the claim, principally holding that no ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the Railway records showed that he had been “run over” at Km.25/38. It further held that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the incident constituted an “untoward incident”. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that non-recovery of the journey ticket, by itself, could not disprove the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that the statement of one Satish Chauhan recorded in the police proceedings does not establish the manner in which the deceased came under the train. On the other hand, the statement of the Loco Pilot of Train No.14646 specifically records that a person came between the train and platform while attempting to board the running train. It is submitted that the Railways’ own evidence, therefore, establishes an “untoward incident”. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no ticket was recovered from the deceased and the Railway records mention the occurrence as a case of “run-over”. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to establish that the deceased had fallen from the train while travelling therein. Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 123/2022 6. It is trite law that mere absence of a ticket with the deceased does not negative his status as a bona fide passenger. The initial burden is on the claimant, which may be discharged by placing the relevant facts on record, whereafter the attending circumstances and the material produced by the Railways are to be considered. (Ref: Union of India v. Rina Devi1). 7. It is an admitted fact that no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, however, AW-1/Vikrant Kumar Mittal, son of the deceased, had categorically deposed that the deceased had purchased the journey ticket in his presence and had kept it in his pocket. The mere fact that he was the son of the deceased and a beneficiary could not, by itself, render his evidence liable to be discarded. More importantly, the Railway has not produced any material showing that the deceased was travelling without a ticket. 8. The next question is the nature of the occurrence and while answering the same against the appellants, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of one Satish Chauhan, recorded in the G.D. of P.S. Kavi Nagar, wherein it is stated that Satish Chauhan, while going for his duty, saw crowd at Platform No.2, Naya Ghaziabad Railway Station and reported that a person had been cut by the Shalimar train at about 10:15 a.m. Significantly, the report does not state that the deceased was crossing the railway line, nor does it give any account of an intentional act on his part. 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 123/2022 9. In addition to the aforesaid, the Railway’s statutory inquiry contains the statement of Shri Param Shivam, Loco Pilot of Train No.14646, wherein, he stated that when the train departed at about 10:25 a.m., one person came between the platform and the train while attempting to board the running train and was run over. This is the specific account of the manner of occurrence emerging from the Railway’s own inquiry. Thus, the contemporaneous Railway records establish the occurrence involving Train No.14646 and the fact that the deceased came under the train at Km.25/38. However, the expression “run over” used in the TSR, Memo and Daily Diary does not answer the manner in which the deceased came between the train and platform. On the other hand, in this aspect, the Loco Pilot’s statement is specific. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in treating the expression “run over” as sufficient to conclude that the occurrence was not an untoward incident. 10. In Rina Devi (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically held that death or injury sustained in the course of boarding or de- boarding a train constitutes an “untoward incident”. It has further held that negligence on the part of the passenger, by itself, cannot be treated as a “self-inflicted injury” so as to attract the exception under Section 124-A of the Act. Accordingly, even the Railways’ own version is that the deceased came between the train and platform while attempting to board Train No.14646. There is no material to suggest that he intended to cause injury to himself. Consequently, the occurrence Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.08.2026 18:39:14 Signature Not Verified FAO 123/2022 cannot be brought within the exception of self-inflicted injury merely because the deceased was attempting to board a running train. 11. The Tribunal, therefore, erred both in treating the non- recovery of the ticket as sufficient to disprove bona fide passenger status and in treating the description of the occurrence as “run over” as sufficient. The evidence, when considered as a whole, establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred in an “untoward incident”. 12. 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. 13. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 14. 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