* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 11.02.2026
Pronounced on : 10.03.2026
Uploaded on : 10.03.2026
+ FAO 261/2022
SH. MOHD RAHEES .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Dristi Bana, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. This applications is filed by the applicant/appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 30 days in filing of the application.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and the
delay of 30 days in filing of the application is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of accordingly.
1. By way of the present application filed under Order XXII Rule 9 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the applicants seek
setting aside of the abatement of the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the legal
representatives of the deceased appellant could not be brought on record
within the prescribed period as they were untraceable, due to which the
appeal came to be abated.
3. Having considered the submissions and for the reasons stated in the
application, the present application is allowed. The abatement of the appeal
is set aside.
4. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL. 26824/2024(To bring on record LRs of deceased appellant)
1. The present application has been filed for bringing on record the LRs
of the deceased appellant who has expired on 17.10.2023.
2. The present application is allowed. The amended memo of parties is
taken on record.
3. The present application stands disposed of.
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 23.11.2021 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the
"Tribunal") in OA/II(u)/DLI/154/2019, whereby the claim petition was filed
seeking statutory compensation on account of injuries sustained in an
untoward incident was dismissed.
2. Sh. Mohd Rahees, was the claimant before the Tribunal. He claimed to
have suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability while
travelling as a passenger in a train. The claim petition was filed invoking the
provisions of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
3. It was the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 17.11.2018,
he had purchased a valid mail/express train ticket to travel from Gondia to
Nagpur for his onward journey to Delhi. He mistakenly boarded Train No.
58117 (Jharsuguda-Gondia Passenger) from Platform No. 2 under the belief
that the said train would proceed towards Nagpur. Upon realising that the
train had terminated at Gondia, he attempted to alight and accidentally fell
from the train due to a sudden jerk, resulting in grievous injuries, including
bilateral amputation of both legs.
4. The Tribunal held that the applicant had failed to establish that the
claimant was a bona fide passenger or that the incident constituted an
"untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989
(hereinafter as the "Act").
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the claimant was a
bona fide passenger, and that his injuries were caused due to an accidental
fall from a train, constituting an "untoward accident" within the meaning of
Section 123(c) of the Act. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate the surrounding circumstances and the settled legal position
governing railway accident claims, the claimant had purchased a valid ticket
and had lost the same along with his belongings due to the accident. It is
contended that the Tribunal misappreciated the evidence on record,
particularly with respect to the time and manner of occurrence of the
incident.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the claim
contending that no valid journey ticket was recovered from the claimant, that
he had boarded an empty rake during shunting operations, and that the
injuries were the result of his own negligence.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused through
the record.
8. In the backdrop of the above facts, the Tribunal framed issues for
adjudication, namely, whether the claimant was a bona fide passenger at the
relevant time, and whether the alleged incident amounts to an "untoward
incident" as defined under the Act.
9. The claimant, appearing as AW-1, deposed by way of affidavit, that he
was travelling from Gondia to Delhi and had mistakenly boarded the wrong
train. He stated that he fell when the train suddenly jerked while he was
attempting to alight
10. The respondent, in its written statement filed during proceedings
before the Tribunal, admitted that the claimant sustained injuries at Gondia
Railway Station and was found in an injured condition at Platform No. 2 on
17.11.2018, whereafter he was taken by ambulance to the hospital for
treatment. Thus, the occurrence of the accident within railway premises and
the factum of grievous injuries suffered by the claimant stand admitted.
11. It is noted in the DRM report that, during the investigation of the
claim, it was alleged that the claimant went to Platform No. 02 instead of
Platform No. 03 to board a train for Nagpur and mistakenly boarded Train
No. 58117 Jharsuguda-Gondia at Platform No. 02. According to the said
report, when the train was being moved towards the yard, the claimant
sustained injuries while attempting to alight from the moving train due to his
own negligence, resulting in the amputation of both his legs.
12. The injuries sustained by the claimant stand duly verified through the
MLC and Referral card, which unequivocally records that the claimant has
suffered a traumatic bilateral below-knee amputation.
13. The initial burden of proving that the claimant was a bona fide
passenger stood discharged, and the onus shifted upon the respondent
Railways to rebut the same by cogent evidence, which they failed to do(Ref:
Union of India v. Rina Devi1).
14. In Munnibai v. Union of India2, it was held that a passenger cannot be
treated as unauthorized merely because he mistakenly boarded a wrong train.
The Court observed as under::-
"9. In the present case, the victim Vikki had admittedly purchased a
train ticket for travel from Nagpur to Tumsar Road. It is in evidence
that he had boarded a wrong train. He cannot be branded as an
unauthorized passenger merely because he had mistakenly boarded a
wrong train. The death of the said passenger was due to the injuries
sustained in accidental fall from a running train. Accordingly, the
death was an "untoward incident" and was not covered by proviso to
section 124-A of the Railways Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, not
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 88
justified in rejecting the claim solely on the ground that the victim
had boarded a wrong train."
15. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Shrikumar Gupta & Anr v. Union of
India3, held that merely boarding a wrong train does not negate the status of
a bona fide passenger. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:-
"9. ... Merely because the deceased had boarded a wrong train, it
cannot be construed that he was not a bona fide passenger so as to
absolve the railway authorities from contending that deceased not
being a bona fide passenger."
16. These facts, taken cumulatively, establish that the accident occurred in
the course of railway operations and sufficiently discharge the initial burden
of proof cast upon the claimant. The Tribunal erred in holding that the
claimant was not a bona fide passenger solely on the ground that the ticket
was not recovered and that he had boarded the wrong train.
17. The Tribunal erred in treating the incident as falling outside the scope
of an "untoward incident" and in denying compensation on speculative
assumptions, despite the absence of any material to show that the injuries
were intentional or covered by any of the statutory exceptions under Section
124-A of the Railways Act. By any stretch of reasoning, be equated with
intentional self-harm or negligence so as to fall within the exceptions carved
out under Section 124A of the Railways Act.
18. It is trite law that the provisions pertaining to compensation under the
Railways Act, 1989 constitute beneficial legislation and must, therefore,
receive a liberal, purposive, and pragmatic interpretation rather than a
narrow or hyper-technical one. Where an accident does not fall within any of
the exceptions enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-
A, the claim is governed by the main body of Section 124-A. The liability
under Section 124-A is one of strict or no-fault liability, and once the
occurrence of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Act is
established, the question as to who was at fault becomes wholly irrelevant
(Ref: Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar4). The respondent has
failed to discharge the burden of establishing the applicability of any
exception under Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in
denying compensation by adopting a technical and speculative approach,
contrary to the settled position of law governing claims arising out of
untoward railway incidents.
19. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the injuries
suffered by him resulted from an untoward incident within the meaning of
Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.
20. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is requested to assess
the compensation amount and direct the authorities to disburse the same
(2008) 9 SCC 527
within a period of 2 months. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the
Tribunal at the first instance on 19.03.2026.
21. The present appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
22. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Tribunal.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
MARCH 10, 2026/dh
