$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011105742025 + FAO 183/2026 MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kshitiz Jain, Mrs. Amrita Singh and Mr. Savyasachi Rawat, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vedansh Anand SPC and Mr. Vanshul. Pali, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and is directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, holding Circuit Bench at Chandigarh in OA/II(U)/DLI/278/2022. Vide the impugned judgment, the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of the death of Ajeet (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts in nutshell are that the claimants have claimed that the deceased had undertaken a train journey on 09.10.2022 from Doiwala to Chandigarh, for which he purchased a second-class railway journey ticket and boarded the Dehradun- Chandigarh Express. It was claimed that in the intervening night of 09-10.10.2022, when the train 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 08/10/2026 at 11:36:38 was running near village Padli Genda, District Haridwar, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and sustained grievous injuries. As no treatment could be made available, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The body was recovered on 10.10.2022 from the bushes near the track. The respondent appeared and contested the claim application. It was contended that neither the deceased was a bonafide passenger, as no journey ticket was recovered from his person, nor was the incident an untoward incident. In this regard, reference was placed on the DRM inquiry report wherein reference was made to the statement of the Guard of the said train, who had denied occurrence of any untoward incident. 3. The claimant had examined himself and filed his evidence by way of an affidavit wherein he stated that the deceased had undertaken the journey after purchasing a second-class valid journey ticket. The witness further deposed that the purchase of the ticket was also witnessed by one Ajit, who was known to the deceased. The said witness Ajit was examined as AW-2 and stated that he had witnessed the deceased purchasing a railway ticket. He further deposed that he was known to the deceased, both being from the same village. On that day, the witness had gone to the railway station as his own brother was also travelling. 4. While answering the issue as to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the Tribunal reached its conclusion on the fact that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. Though 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 08/10/2026 at 11:36:38 it referred to the decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, it reached the conclusion that the deceased could not be termed as a bonafide passenger. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal misdirected itself in not appreciating the decision in Rina Devi (Supra), as reiterated subsequently in Lata v. Union of India2, wherein it has been held that the initial onus is on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit stating that the journey was undertaken after purchase of a valid journey ticket. Merely because the journey ticket was lost, the same would not disentitle the claimant from pursuing the claim application. In the present case, the said onus was discharged through the testimony of the claimant as well as Ajit (AW-2). The latter had witnessed the purchase of the ticket and nothing contrary could be brought out in his cross-examination. 6. Coming to the second aspect, as to whether the incident can be termed as an untoward incident, the Tribunal referred to the DRM report and the fact that the body of the deceased was recovered from the bushes. It further relied on the post-mortem report which reflected that the deceased had suffered a head injury, however, there were no abrasions or lacerations besides grease marks, which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, negated the claim of the appellant. 7. It is undisputed that the fall had taken place at a mid-section which is far away from the place of boarding of the train. It is also not in dispute 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350 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 08/10/2026 at 11:36:38 that the body of the deceased was found near the track on which the said train was running. The extensive reliance of the Tribunal on the post- mortem report or that the body was recovered from near the bushes is also misplaced, as it cannot be ruled out that, on suffering a fall, the deceased could have crawled for some distance for safety. However, not being in a position to seek medical assistance, he succumbed to the said injuries at the spot itself. 8. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to determine and assess the compensation, for which purpose, the matter shall be listed before the Tribunal on 16.10.2026. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 sn 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 08/10/2026 at 11:36:38