[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Pooja Bhati & Ors vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 16.03.2026
Pronounced on : 17.03.2026
Uploaded on : 18.03.2026
+ FAO 80/2026
POOJA BHATI & ORS. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood
and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, CGSC with Ms.
Ridhima Gaur and Mr. Deepu Kumar,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and since there is no
opposition to the prayer made, the same is allowed and the delay of 67 days
in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"),
Delhi, in Case No. OA/IIU/DLI/620/2025 titled as, „Smt. Pooja Bhati & Ors.
vs. Union of India‟.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased
was neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged accident an "untoward
incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Act").
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that,
one Sanjay Bhati @ Sanjay Nath (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased")
is stated to have undertaken a journey from Kasganj to Ratlam Jn. on the
strength of a journey ticket. On the intervening night of 18/19.09.2024, the
deceased suddenly fell down between Agsauli and Sikandrau stations and
died on the spot. Thereafter, the post-mortem was conducted at Government
Hospital, Kasganj.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment
by contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the alleged
accident took place as a result of an accidental fall from the train, thereby
constituting an "untoward incident" under the Act. It is submitted that the
deceased had left his residence on 15.09.2024, and, had subsequently
informed his wife on 18.09.2024 over a phone call that he would board a
night train to return back home. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1 to contend that mere non-
recovery of the railway ticket cannot be treated as fatal to the claim,
particularly when the affidavit of AW-1, Pooja Bhati (wife of the deceased)
states that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket, which, along
with the deceased‟s bag, was lost during the incident.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment by reiterating that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger
nor the alleged incident was an "untoward incident" within the meaning of
the Act. It is submitted that no railway journey ticket was recovered during
jamatalashi conducted by the police. Reliance is placed on the inquiry
report, Station Master Memo and statements of railway staff to contend that
there is no material to show that the deceased had undertaken any railway
journey.
6. This Court has heard the arguments addressed on behalf of both
parties and has perused the material on record.
7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for
consideration before this Court are whether the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and whether the alleged incident was an "untoward incident" as
defined under the Act.
8. It is not in dispute that no railway journey ticket was recovered from
the possession of the deceased, and furthermore, the jamatalashi conducted
(2019) 3 SCC 572
by the police records that only an Aadhaar card and a diary was recovered
from the person of the deceased. The appellants sought to establish the case
of travel through the testimony of AW-1, however, a reading of her
deposition would show that she was not accompanying the deceased at the
time of the alleged journey.
9. The testimony of AW-1 also fails to disclose any particulars regarding
the purchase of the ticket or, the train by which the deceased allegedly
travelled. Her knowledge of the alleged travel of the deceased is based on
what the deceased is stated to have conveyed to her over a phone call, and
she, herself did not witness the deceased purchasing a journey ticket and thus
falls short of discharging the initial burden of stating material facts in terms
of decision in Rina Devi (supra). In view thereof, this Court observes that the
Tribunal was justified in holding that the bona fide status of the deceased
was not proved.
10. Having concluded so, the second issue does not require to be delved
into. Although on appreciation of facts, this Court finds that the body of the
deceased was discovered by the railway keyman Wasim Md., lying between
Agsauli and Sikandrau Stations at KM No. 271/6-7, who subsequently
informed the railway authorities. The Station Master Memo and the records
prepared thereafter indicate that the body was found lying near the track. As
noted above, no journey ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi, and
furthermore, the statements of railway staff on duty, also indicate that they
had no knowledge of any such incident. The inquiry report prepared by the
railway authorities records that there was no evidence to show that the
deceased had undertaken any railway journey.
11. In light of the reasoning given in the impugned order and the
submissions put forth, I do not find force in the merits of the contentions and
hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
MARCH 17, 2026
kk
