In a landmark ruling pronounced on 19 March 2026, the High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal filed by Dharamawati (mother of the deceased) in FAO 31/2022 and remanded the matter back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, directing it to assess and disburse compensation within two months.
The case arose from a tragic incident on 15 June 2018. Bunty was travelling on a valid ticket from Tughlakabad to Palwal in a local EMU train. Between Ballabhgarh and Asaoti stations, he fell from the moving train due to a jerk and died on the spot. His mother filed a claim under the Railways Act, 1989, but the Tribunal dismissed it in March 2021, holding that Bunty was neither a bona fide passenger (no ticket was recovered from his body) nor was the incident an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, after hearing arguments from Mr. Rajan Sood for the appellant and Mr. Harsh Kumar (SPC) along with other counsel for the Union of India, took a different view.
On the question of bona fide passenger status, the Court relied on the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (2019). Even though no ticket was found during the inquest, the testimony of AW-2 (the deceased’s brother-in-law) was found fully credible. He had accompanied Bunty to the station, bought the ticket, and seen him board the train at around 9:45 PM. This evidence was never shaken in cross-examination. The Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claim solely on the absence of a physical ticket, the Court held.
The Court also rejected the Railways’ attempt to portray the death as suicide due to mental stress or as a case of the deceased crossing the tracks and being run over. The DRM report itself accepted that Bunty fell from a running train (though blaming negligence). Once a fall from a moving train is established, it squarely qualifies as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The liability of the Railways under Section 124-A is strict; the victim’s negligence is irrelevant unless one of the statutory exceptions applies — none of which existed here.
The Tribunal had also placed heavy reliance on the fact that the body was found nearly 12 hours later. Citing its earlier decision in Surendra Verma vs. Union of India, the High Court clarified that mere delay in recovery of the body cannot be a decisive factor to disbelieve the claimant’s version, especially when there is no contrary evidence.
Describing the Tribunal’s approach as “unduly rigid”, the judgment underscored that the provisions for compensation under the Railways Act are beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally to provide prompt relief to victims of railway accidents.
The High Court has now set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed it to list the matter on 30 March 2026 for expeditious assessment of compensation.
Case Details: Dharmawati versus Union of India | FAO 31/2022
Click HERE for full order.
Lawcutor 