[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Khushi & Ors vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 16.01.2026
Pronounced on : 23.01.2026
Uploaded on : 24.01.2026
+ FAO 327/2025
KHUSHI & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood
and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondents
Through: Dr. Ishaan Swarana Sharma, SPC
with Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, GP
with Mr. Shubham Shukla, Mr.
Ayush, and Mr. Mukund Ranjan,
Advocates for UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
CM APPL.73805/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The present application is disposed of.
CM APPL.73804/2025 (Delay)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in
filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the
delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of the
deceased, i.e. Naresh, assailing the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2025
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Case
No.OA/II/U/DLI/616/2024 titled "Smt. Khushi & Ors. Vs. Union of India",
vide which their claims seeking death compensation were dismissed.
2. Notably, the legal heirs of the deceased had preferred the claim
application, alleging that the deceased had undertaken the train journey on
23.03.2024 after purchasing a valid journey ticket bearing
No.ALB54023348. He boarded the Haldighati Express (Train No. 19817) at
Gangapur City Railway Station for an onward journey to Fatehpur Sikri
Railway Station. The deceased, however, could not get down at the said
station and, before the train could reach the next station, i.e. Singarpur, he
fell down between Kiraoli and Fatehpur Sikri at KM No. 54/08-09 and died
at the spot.
3. The claim was resisted by the respondent, denying that the death had
occurred in an "untoward incident". He further submitted that at the time of
reporting, the dead body of the deceased was lying on the railway track
when another train, i.e. train No.05914, passed from there. In this regard, the
statement of the loco pilot, Dhanraj Meghwal, was recorded. He deposed
that when he saw a dead body lying on the railway line, he stopped his train
and got the incident recorded with the Guard in the said train. A written
memo was also given to the Dy. Station Superintendent, Fatehpur Sikri
Railway Station.
4. The Tribunal concluded that the deceased was neither a bona fide
passenger nor did he die in an untoward incident. The aforesaid findings
were rendered as the respondent had claimed that in between the falling
down of the deceased from the train and the discovery of his body by the
aforementioned loco pilot, four other trains had passed and none of them had
reported the dead body. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
aforesaid shows that the death had not occurred on account of falling from a
train.
5. As per the conceded case of the appellants, the body was discovered
by the loco pilot of train No.05914, Dhanraj Meghwal, on the railway track,
which was a single line. The accident had taken place roughly after 3.39 hrs
when the train, Haldighati Express, had left the Fatehpur Sikri Railway
Station. The appellant's contention that none of the other loco pilots
discovered the body as it was midnight is plausible. The deceased was found
with a valid ticket, and his body was found on the same track on which the
deceased was undertaking his journey. Merely because the body of the
deceased was discovered after four hours does not take away from this case
being an "untoward incident". The first information about the incident was
about a man being run over. The post-mortem report also records shock and
hemorrhage because of ante-mortem injuries. In the DRM proceedings, the
journey ticket was verified. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors.1 has opined that the Railways Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation and a narrow interpretation or restrictive
meaning of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Act will
deprive a large number of passengers from getting compensation in railway
accidents. Further, Section 124A lays down strict or no-fault liability in case
(2008) 9 SCC 527
of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section
124A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
6. On a cumulative assessment of the facts and the legal position, this
Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal fell into error in dismissing
the appellants' claim. The impugned order is accordingly set aside, and the
respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with
interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
before the Railway Claims Tribunal till the date of realisation. The said
amount shall be paid to the appellants within a period of 4 weeks from
today.
7. The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 23, 2026
pmc
