Dharamawati v. Union of India - Railway Claims Tribunal Appeal

India Delhi High Court

Filed March 19th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The Delhi High Court has ruled on an appeal concerning a Railway Claims Tribunal decision. The court addressed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, noting that due to Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods, there was no actual delay. Consequently, the application was rendered infructuous.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Dharamawati vs. Union of India, addressed an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The appeal stemmed from a judgment by the Railway Claims Tribunal that dismissed the appellant's claim application. The Tribunal had found that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the incident an 'untoward incident' as defined by the Railways Act, 1989.

The High Court considered an application seeking condonation of a 141-day delay in filing the appeal. However, referencing a Supreme Court order (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil). No. 3 of 2020) that extended limitation periods, the Court determined that there was no actual delay. As a result, the application for condonation of delay was deemed infructuous, and the appeal itself proceeded on its merits, with the court beginning to review the facts of the original claim.

Source document (simplified)

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Dharamawati vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri

Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  %                                      Reserved on       : 18.03.2026
                                                         Pronounced on     : 19.03.2026
                                                         Uploaded on       : 19.03.2026

                  +                         FAO 31/2022

                  DHARAMAWATI                                         .....Appellant
                                           Through:      Mr. Rajan Sood, Advocate

                                                      versus

                  UNION OF INDIA                                     .....Respondent
                                           Through:      Mr. Harsh Kumar, SPC (UOI), Ms.
                                                         Sikha Gogoi, Mr. Himanshu Bidhuri
                                                         and Mr. Neel Kr. Sharma, Advocates

                         CORAM:
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

                                                 JUDGMENT CM APPL. 7466/2022 (Seeking condonation of delay of 141 days in
                  filing the appeal)

By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal.
However, in the order dated 10.02.2022, it was observed that in view
of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition
(Civil). No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation, there was no delay
in filing the appeal.
Therefore, in view of the above, the present application has been
rendered infructuous.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022 Page 1 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12 FAO 31/2022 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the "Tribunal") in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/71/2021 titled as
" Smt. Dharamawati vs. Union of India ".

Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased was
neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged incident an "untoward
incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act").
The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that
on 15.06.2018, one Bunty (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") was
travelling from Tughlakabad to Palwal by a local EMU train on the strength
of a valid journey ticket. While the train was running between Ballabhgarh
and Asaoti Railway Stations, the deceased, due to a jerk, fell from the train
and sustained grievous injuries, to which, he succumbed at the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the incident
in question was an "untoward incident" as defined under the Act. It is
submitted that although the journey ticket was not recovered from the body
of the deceased, the testimony of AW-2, Mahesh Kumar, the brother-in-law
of the deceased establishes that the deceased undertook the journey on the
strength of a valid ticket, which was purchased by AW-2 for him. It is
further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the body having
been found after 12 hours is misconceived, as the mere fact that the body Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022 Page 2 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12 was noticed later does not discredit the case of accidental fall from the train.
Learned counsel further emphasized that even as per the DRM report, the
case of the Railways is that the deceased fell from a running train, though
attributing the same to negligence, which is immaterial and that, such a fall
squarely falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident".

   Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
                  judgment by submitting that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as
                  no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, and the dead body
                  was found nearly 12 hours after the alleged fall, which renders the
                  appellant's version doubtful. It is further submitted that as per the statements
                  recorded during investigation, including that of the brother of the deceased,
                  the deceased was under mental stress due to lack of employment. Reliance is
                  also placed on the inquest report to contend that the injuries sustained were
                  consistent with the deceased having been run over by a train while crossing
                  the railway track and not due to a fall from a running train.

   This Court has heard the arguments of both the parties and perused
                  the material on record.

   In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for
                  consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and
                  whether the alleged incident was an "untoward incident" as defined under
                  the Act.

   It is an admitted position that no journey ticket was recovered from
                  the body of the deceased during jamatalashi. However, as per the settled law
                  in [Union of India vs. Rina Devi1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/), the absence of recovery of a ticket does not
                  negate the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger. In the present 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022                                                  Page 3 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12 case, AW-2 has categorically deposed that he had accompanied the deceased
                  to Tughlakabad Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket for him to travel
                  from Tughlakabad to Palwal and made him board the EMU passenger train
                  at about 9:45 PM on 15.06.2018. The said testimony has remained
                  consistent and has not been discredited in cross-examination. Even, AW-1,
                  Dharamawati, the mother of the deceased, has deposed that the deceased
                  had gone to visit his sister and was returning on the said date. In view of the
                  aforesaid, the appellant has been able to discharge the initial burden of
                  establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The respondent
                  has failed to rebut the same by placing any cogent evidence on record. The
                  Tribunal, therefore, erred in rejecting the claim solely on the ground of non-
                  recovery of the journey ticket.

Further, the respondent has sought to rely upon the statement of the
brother of the deceased to contend that the deceased was under mental stress
due to lack of employment. This Court finds that the said contention is
wholly inconsequential and that, there is no material on record to suggest
that such alleged stress was of such an extent so as to lead to any extreme
conduct. There is neither any reference to suicidal tendencies nor any
evidence to establish any nexus between such alleged stress and the incident
in question. The said circumstance, therefore, cannot be relied upon to
discredit the case of the appellant.
Insofar as the manner of the incident is concerned, the Tribunal has
proceeded on the premise that the deceased was run over by a train while
crossing the railway track, relying upon the inquest report and the opinion of
the SHO as well as the conclusion drawn in the GRP investigation. The GRP
report, rather suggests that the deceased may have fallen from the train.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022 Page 4 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12 Further, a perusal of the inquest report shows that the first information
regarding the dead body was received on 16.06.2018 at about 9:35 AM,
when an unknown body was found lying near the UP main line between
Ballabgarh and Asaoti Railway Stations at Km No. 1494/9-7. The opinion
recorded therein, notes that the death occurred due to injuries sustained in a
railway accident and that the possibility of such injuries being caused in a
"railway accident cannot be ruled out". The SHO's opinion, based on the
condition of the body, is not that of an eyewitness account but is only
speculative in nature, and thus cannot be treated as conclusive proof.

  Significantly, even as per the DRM report, the case of the Railways is
                  that the deceased fell from a running train, though attributing the same to his
                  own negligence. Once the factum of fall from a running train is accepted and
                  the nature of the incident stands established, the same would squarely fall
                  within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined under [Section 123(c)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93406231/) of the Act. The attribution of negligence to the deceased does not alter this
                  position, as, it is well settled that negligence of the victim is not a relevant
                  consideration for denying compensation under [Section 124-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93406231/) of the Act.
                  The liability of the Railways in such cases is strict, subject only to the
                  statutory exceptions, none of which are attracted in the present case.

  The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the circumstance that the
                  dead body was noticed at about 9:35 AM on the following day, i.e., nearly
                  12 hours after the deceased had boarded the train at about 9:40 - 9:45 PM. In [Surendra Verma vs. Union of India2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63988761/), it has been held that mere delay in the
                  recovery or discovery of the body cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor
                  to disbelieve the case of accidental fall, particularly in the absence of any 2 2014 SCC Online Del 2917 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022                                                  Page 5 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12 cogent evidence to the contrary. Applying the said principle to the facts of
                   the present case, the precise time at which the deceased fell from the train is
                   not known, and therefore, the mere fact that the body was noticed after some
                   time cannot lead to an adverse inference against the claimant or discredit the
                   appellant's version.

  Considering the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that
                   the Tribunal, in the present case, adopted an unduly rigid standard of proof,
                   overlooking the beneficial object of the Act and the settled principle that
                   proceedings thereunder are intended to provide prompt and efficacious relief
                   to the victims of railway accidents.

   It is well settled that the provisions relating to compensation under [Section 124-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93406231/) of the Act constitute a piece of beneficial legislation and must
                  be construed liberally. In [Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1135725/), the
                  Supreme Court held that once the occurrence of an "untoward incident" is
                  established, the liability of Railways is strict unless the case falls within the
                  statutory exceptions. Similarly, in [Union of India vs. Rina Devi](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/) (supra), it was
                  held that the non-recovery of a ticket is not itself sufficient to defeat a claim
                  for compensation.

   In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
                  matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the
                  amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law and
                  direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from
                  the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before
                  the Tribunal at the first instance on 30.03.2026.

   The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

3 (2008) 9 SCC 527 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022 Page 6 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12

A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MARCH 19, 2026
kk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 31/2022 Page 7 of 7 Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:44:12