[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Manarajiya & Ors vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 19.01.2026
Pronounced on : 21.01.2026
Uploaded on : 21.01.2026
+ FAO 324/2019
MANARAJIYA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood & Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh (CGSC) with Ms.
Ira Singh, Mr. Aryan Dhaka, and Ms.
Nandini Aggarwal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
05.06.2017 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
in Case No. OA (IIu) 80/2016.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants. The claim application came to be filed
seeking death compensation in the context of a train accident statedly
suffered by Sh. Ram Gopal Paw (hereinafter "deceased") on 08.05.2015. It
was claimed that the deceased undertook the train journey from Delhi to
Bhiwani by Kalindi Express Train after purchasing a valid journey ticket,
which somehow was lost at the time of the incident. It was further claimed
that on account of a sudden jerk and push by the passengers from inside the
compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from running train at Old
Delhi Railway Station itself and died on the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the Tribunal
held the incident to be an "untoward incident"; it dismissed the claim by
observing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey
ticket was found on his person.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has defended
the impugned judgment.
5. The two primary issues that arose before the Tribunal were:-
i. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide
passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of the
incident?
ii. Whether the death of the deceased has occurred in an
untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 of the
Railways Act?
6. While considering Issue No. 1, it was noted that the deceased was
stated to be returning home to Bhiwani from Delhi after attending a Kisan
Rally. The journey ticket claimed to have been purchased was not recovered
at the time of the incident from the person of the deceased. Only one pocket
diary and one old ticket from Gurgaon to Delhi were recovered. The
Tribunal observed that in all probability, had the deceased purchased a
journey ticket for travelling from Delhi to Bhiwani, the said ticket would
have been kept in the same diary and would have been recovered. The
Tribunal held the issue against the claimant.
7. While answering Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the deceased fell
from the train at Old Delhi Railway Station. The said fact was admitted by
the respondent and, therefore, Issue No. 2 was answered in the affirmative in
favour of the claimant.
8. Pertinently, in support of his claim, the claimant had examined one
Vijoo Krishnan. A perusal of his testimony would reveal that he deposed
that on 03.05.2015, the deceased along with others had come to Delhi for
attending a Kisan Rally. While the others went back, the deceased stayed in
Delhi as he had some work to attend to in Gurgaon. On 07.05.2015, the
deceased returned from Gurgaon to Delhi and stayed with the witness at his
house. On 08.05.2015, he brought the deceased to Delhi Railway Station on
his motorcycle and in his presence, the deceased had purchased a journey
ticket for his journey from Delhi to Bhiwani. In cross-examination, he
claimed that he was the Joint Secretary of Akhil Bhartiya Kisan Sabha and
that the deceased was a worker of the said organisation. He further stated
that the deceased was not related to him.
9. At this juncture, this Court is reminded of the fact that the Supreme
Court has repeatedly held that the provision pertaining to compensation in
Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and should accordingly
receive a liberal and wider interpretation instead of a narrow and technical
one. Further, the liability under Section 124A has been held to be strict.
10. Though the initial burden is on the claimant to prove that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger, this burden can be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts, whereafter the burden shifts onto the railways
to prove otherwise.
11. In the present case, the affidavit of Vijoo Krishanan has discharged
the initial burden and the mere fact that the train ticket was not recovered
amongst other valuables of the deceased would not negate the fact that he
was a bona fide passenger.
12. This Court in reaching the above conclusion is guided by the decision
of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi1, wherein it was
observed as under:
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or
deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for
compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket
with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was
a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which
can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and
burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided
on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to
be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal
position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
13. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are held to be entitled to
compensation. Having reached the said conclusion, this Court deems it
apposite to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for awarding of the
scheduled compensation.
14. Accordingly, the matter shall be listed before the Railway Claims
Tribunal on 02.02.2026 for the purpose of awarding compensation in terms
of the Railway Accident Compensation Rules, 1990. The compensation
granted thereof shall be remitted within a period of 4 weeks.
15. The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 21, 2026/nb
(2019) 3 SCC 572
