< Back

Kallu & Anr vs Union of India 2026 DHC 1395

Synopsis

This Delhi High Court judgment dismisses a First Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had rejected the appellants' claim for compensation. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased, claimed that their predecessor died due to an accidental fall from a train while attempting to alight at Shakur Basti Railway Station. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on two grounds: that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, and that the incident did not constitute an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The High Court, after examining the evidence including eyewitness accounts, site plan, and investigation reports, concurred with the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the appeal, also condoning a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal.

1. Case Identification & Coram

Citation: 2026:DHC:1395

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

First Appeal No.: FAO 153/2019

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Nature of Bench: Single Judge

Date of Pronouncement: 17th February 2026

Date of Reservation: 14th January 2026

2. Legal Framework & Relevant Provisions
The judgment engages with railway accident compensation law and procedural law:

Substantive Law: The Railways Act, 1989, particularly:
Section 123(c): Definition of "untoward incident" – includes accidental falling of passenger from train carrying passengers.
Section 124A: Liability of railway administration for death or injury to a passenger due to untoward incident.
Explanation to Section 124A: Deems a person with a valid ticket to be a passenger.
Procedural Law:
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987: Provision for appeal against orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Condonation of delay in filing appeals upon showing sufficient cause.
Order XLI Rule 3A CPC: Procedure for appeal with delay.
Beneficial Legislation Principle: The Court noted the beneficial nature of the legislation (railway compensation laws) while considering the condonation of delay application.
Precedent Relied Upon:
Mohsina v. Union of India (Coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court) – Delay of 804 days condoned considering weak economic status of appellants/claimants.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

On 25th August 2016, one Ishwar Deen (deceased) was allegedly traveling with his uncle Bhaiya Ram from Rohtak to Shakur Basti Railway Station.
They claimed to possess valid second-class journey tickets bearing Nos. 56113432 and 56113433, each worth Rs.15/-.
According to the claim application, while the deceased and his uncle were trying to de-board the train at Shakur Basti Railway Station, the train suddenly jerked, causing the deceased to fall and die on the spot, while Bhaiya Ram sustained injuries.
The deceased was removed to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where post-mortem was conducted; Bhaiya Ram was taken to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital.
The appellants (legal heirs) filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Case No. OA(IIu) No. 96/2017).
The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on 12th April 2018, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the incident was not an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act.
The appellants filed the present appeal with a delay of 237 days, along with an application for condonation of delay.
Key evidence against the claim included:
Eyewitness account of Amit Kharkhodia (Khallasi in Signal and Telecommunication) who stated he saw two persons walking close to the Up line railway track near Punjabi Bagh flyover being run over by Train No. 64915 (Delhi-Rohtak MEMU).
Statement of Krishan Kumar (East Cabin man) corroborating the eyewitness account.
Station Master's Memo recording that one passenger was run over by Train No. 64915.
DRM Report concluding the deceased was hit by train due to his own negligence while crossing the railway line.
Site map (Naksha Moka) showing the incident occurred at KM No. 9/01, while Shakur Basti Railway Station is located at KM No. 10/08.
The train that allegedly hit the deceased (Train No. 64915) runs from Delhi to Rohtak, opposite to the direction of the train the deceased claimed to be traveling on (Rohtak to Shakur Basti).

4. Issues Before the High Court
The primary issues for determination were:

Whether the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal should be condoned?
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act?
Whether the death of the deceased constituted an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application?

5. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning

The Court dismissed the appeal. The ratio decidendi can be summarized as:

Condonation of Delay: Guided by the beneficial nature of the legislation and the precedent in Mohsina v. Union of India (where 804 days delay was condoned), the Court found that the appellants, belonging to an economically weak section, had shown sufficient cause for the delay of 237 days. The delay was condoned.
Bona fide Passenger Status: The Court noted that while the tickets had been produced and verified, the primary issue was not merely the existence of tickets but the overall credibility of the appellants' version. The deceased's uncle (Bhaiya Ram), who was the accompanying person and an injured witness, was not examined, which weakened the appellants' case.
Untoward Incident Analysis: The Court conducted a detailed examination of the evidence:
The location of the body was found at KM No. 9/01 Up line, whereas Shakur Basti Station is at KM No. 10/08. This meant the deceased was found more than 1.5 kms beyond his destination station towards the Delhi end.
The eyewitness account of Amit Kharkhodia, corroborated by Krishan Kumar and the Station Master's Memo, established that the deceased and his uncle were walking close to the Up line railway track and were run over by Train No. 64915 (Delhi-Rohtak MEMU), which runs in the opposite direction to the train the deceased claimed to have been traveling on.
The DRM Report and site map (Naksha Moka) corroborated this version.
The appellants' version that the deceased fell from the train while alighting at Shakur Basti was rendered "inherently improbable" given the location of the body and the direction of the train that caused the death.
Definition of Untoward Incident: The incident as established by the evidence—the deceased walking on the track and being run over due to his own negligence while crossing the railway line—does not fall within the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, which covers accidental falling from a train carrying passengers.
No Perversity in Tribunal's Order: The Court found no infirmity or perversity in the reasoning of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal's findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

6. Legal Principles Established/Reinforced

While the judgment does not establish new law, it reinforces several established principles:

Liberal Approach to Condonation of Delay in Beneficial Legislation: In matters involving compensation claims under social welfare legislation, courts adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially when appellants belong to economically weaker sections.
Burden of Proof in Claim Cases: The claimant must establish both the bona fide passenger status and the occurrence of an untoward incident. Mere production of tickets is not sufficient if the overall circumstances and contemporaneous evidence contradict the claimant's version.
Evidentiary Value of Official Records: Contemporaneous documents such as Station Master's Memo, DRM Reports, and site maps prepared during investigation carry significant evidentiary weight and can outweigh an unsubstantiated claim.
Definition of Untoward Incident: For an incident to qualify as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, it must be an accidental falling from a train carrying passengers. Death caused by a passenger walking on tracks and being run over due to negligence does not fall within this definition.
Examination of Key Witnesses: Failure to examine material witnesses (such as the injured uncle who was traveling with the deceased) can be fatal to the claimant's case.

7. Judicial Analysis & Examination

The Court's analytical approach was methodical:

Two-Stage Analysis: The Court first addressed the delay condonation application, applying liberal principles, and then proceeded to examine the merits of the appeal.
Deference to Tribunal's Findings: The Court examined whether the Tribunal's findings suffered from any perversity or infirmity, rather than re-appreciating the entire evidence afresh.
Contradiction Analysis: The Court meticulously compared the appellants' version with the contemporaneous evidence:
Location of body vs. destination station.
Direction of train in question vs. train that allegedly hit the deceased.
Eyewitness accounts vs. claim application version.
Credibility Assessment: The Court noted the failure to examine Bhaiya Ram, the injured uncle, which significantly undermined the credibility of the appellants' case.
Inherent Probability Test: Applying a common sense test, the Court found the appellants' version inherently improbable given that the body was found 1.5 kms beyond the destination station towards the opposite direction.
Cumulative Consideration: The Court considered all material cumulatively and concluded it was sufficient to negate the appellants' case.

8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome

Critical Analysis: The judgment represents a fact-driven application of settled legal principles to railway accident compensation claims. The Court correctly identified that the contemporaneous evidence—eyewitness accounts, Station Master's Memo, site map, and DRM Report—painted a consistent picture contradicting the appellants' version. The failure to examine Bhaiya Ram, the most crucial witness who could have corroborated the claim, was a significant lapse. The Court's finding that the appellants' version was "inherently improbable" is well-reasoned: if the deceased had fallen while alighting at Shakur Basti, his body should have been found at or near the station, not 1.5 kms beyond it towards Delhi, and he would not have been hit by a train running in the opposite direction. The judgment also appropriately distinguishes between an "untoward incident" (accidental fall from train) and a death caused by negligence while walking on tracks. While one may sympathize with the family's loss, the Court correctly applied the law as it stands. The condonation of delay reflects the Court's sensitivity to the economic circumstances of the claimants, aligning with the beneficial object of the legislation.

Final Outcome: The application for condonation of delay (CM APPL. 16046/2019) was allowed, and the delay of 237 days was condoned. However, the main appeal (FAO 153/2019) was dismissed as the Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.