$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010207852025 + FAO 98/2025 RAMNIWAS GAUTAM & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Neha Rastogi, SPC with Mr. Animesh Rastogi, Mr. Rajat Dubey, Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 14.09.2026 The matter is taken up today as 11.09.2026 was declared holiday vide Notification No. 86/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 08.09.2026. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in OA (IIu)/DLI/387/2023, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of their soncame to be dismissed. 2. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the deceased, namely Amreesh Gautam, was travelling with a valid MST and, while travelling in Train No. 14208, he accidentally fell from the running train near Mehrauli Railway Station and suffered fatal injuries. The Tribunal, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:28:55 however, found that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased had died on account of an accidental fall from the passenger train. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has primarily assailed the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the testimony of RW-1/Prem Narayan, the Loco Pilot of Train No. 14208. It has been contended that there are material contradictions in his testimony, particularly as to whether the deceased came running in front of the train or was already lying on the railway line. It has also been argued that his statement was recorded much after the incident and, therefore, could not have been relied upon to sustain the finding of the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the testimony of RW-1, the Engine Driver’s Notebook and the other railway records, including the record of the Station Master and Pointsman, clearly support the finding that the deceased came in contact with Train No. 14208 while it was passing through Mehrauli Station and that the incident was not a case of accidental fall from the train. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. Pertinently, RW-1 was the Loco Pilot of Train No. 14208,in his evidence,stated that while driving the train, one person suddenly came on the railway track in front of the engine and dashed against the train. He further stated that, after the incident, he informed the Station Master, Mehrauli as well as the Guard of the train. The Engine Driver’s Notebook produced by him also contains a contemporaneous entry regarding one person having come under the train near the station building and the information having been given to the concerned railway staff. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:28:55 6. It is true that, during cross-examination, RW-1 subsequently stated that the person was lying on the railway line and that, due to the speed of the train, he could not stop it. He also stated that he could not say in what condition the deceased was lying between the railway lines and agreed that the man had not jumped in front of his train. However, in the opinion of this Court, the same relates to the precise manner in which the deceased came to be on the track and does not dislodge the consistent part of his evidence that the deceased was on the railway line and came in contact with Train No. 14208. 7. More importantly, the testimony of RW-1 does not stand in isolation. The railway records placed before the Tribunal record that Sh. Ranjit Singh, the Station Superintendent, Mehrauli andRam Kishor Meena, the Pointsman were exchanging signals when they saw the deceased “jump in front of Train No. 14208”. The Naksha Nazri also records the place of occurrence in front of the station building and the subsequent location of the body parts on the adjoining line and the Station Diary, likewise, records that the deceased had come under Train No. 14208 when it was passing through the station. These circumstances were duly considered by the Tribunal. 8. Thus, even if the aforesaid discrepancy in the testimony of RW-1 is taken into consideration, the same cannot be treated as sufficient to accept the appellants’ version that the deceased had accidentally fallen from Train No. 14208. The Tribunal, on an overall consideration of the railway records, the testimony of RW-1 and the attending circumstances, found that the death had occurred on account of the deceased coming in contact with the train and not on account of an accidental fall therefrom. The said finding is supported by the material on record and does not call for interference merely This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:28:55 because the Loco Pilot was not consistent on the precise manner in which the deceased came to be on the track. 9. The same consideration would apply while examining whether the incident falls within the meaning of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989. The mere fact that the deceased suffered fatal injuries upon coming in contact with a train cannot, by itself, establish an “untoward incident” when the evidence on record does not support the pleaded case of an accidental fall from a passenger train. The appellants were required to establish the occurrence pleaded by them, and the material placed on record, when considered as a whole, does not support that version 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the findings returned by the Tribunal. The discrepancy in the testimony of RW-1, when considered in the context of the other contemporaneous railway records, is insufficient to displace the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 na This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:28:55