PURNIMA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Judgment
Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar, SPC with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP and Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT
#1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 05.01.2026, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/49/2025. 2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the appellant was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the incident come within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 189 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:18.05.2026 19:09:41 FAO 153/2026 Page 1 of 6
#3. The brief facts of the case, as set up before the Tribunal, are that on
12.10.2024, one Sh. Ravindra Kumar @ Neetu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling along with his younger son and his brother-in- law, Deshpal Singh, from Gokulpur Saboli to Shamli on the strength of valid journey tickets for the said travel. During the course of the journey, due to heavy crowding and pushing inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the moving train near Gotra Halt and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was initially taken to CHC Khekra for treatment and was thereafter shifted to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where he ultimately succumbed to his injuries. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled legal principles and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and rejected the claim on mere conjectures. Learned counsel submits that the evidence brought on record by the appellants was sufficient to establish both the bona fide status of the deceased as well as the occurrence of an “untoward incident” on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors2. and Rajni & Ors. v. Union of India3. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that no railway official received any information regarding the alleged incident and therefore no
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — s. 23.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 18 May 2026. The bench was MANOJ KUMAR OHRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.