Delhi High Court Grants Railway Compensation Claim to Man Who Lost Both Legs; Holds Missing Ticket and Trackside Location Cannot Negate Bona Fide Passenger Status Alone
Delhi High Court Says Passenger Could Have Fallen From Moving Train Before Being Run Over; Restores Compensation Claim for Double-Leg Amputation
Facts
The appellant, Sukhmandar Singh, challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 2 April 2018 rejecting his compensation claim. He had also sought condonation of a 786-day delay in filing the appeal, explaining that he was poor, illiterate and unable to obtain timely legal advice due to financial constraints.
On 13 July 2016, Sukhmandar Singh had come to Delhi in search of employment and was travelling from Old Delhi Railway Station to Ghaziabad. His uncle accompanied him to the station and allegedly purchased his journey ticket. He boarded an EMU train and, because of heavy crowding, stood near the doorway. According to him, the train suddenly moved with a violent jerk, causing him to fall.
The accident caused catastrophic injuries: both his legs were amputated below the knees, besides head injuries and broken teeth. He was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital for treatment.
The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected his case, holding that he was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.
Issues
The Delhi High Court considered three principal questions: whether the 786-day delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation; whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger despite non-recovery of his railway ticket; and whether his injuries resulted from an “untoward incident” involving an accidental fall from a train or from trespassing and being run over while crossing railway tracks.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant submitted that his uncle had purchased a valid ticket for his journey from Old Delhi to Ghaziabad.
He explained that the ticket was kept in a bag containing his belongings, which was lost during the accident. Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, he argued that mere non-recovery of a ticket could not automatically establish ticketless travel.
He also challenged the Tribunal’s conclusion that he had been “run over” while trespassing, contending that this theory rested upon conjecture because no eyewitness had been examined to establish that he was crossing the railway tracks.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India defended the Tribunal’s decision, emphasising that no railway ticket had been recovered from the appellant.
It relied upon discrepancies between the appellant and his uncle concerning the time they reached Old Delhi Railway Station and argued that the appellant could neither identify the train nor satisfactorily explain the loss of the bag containing the alleged ticket.
The Railways also relied upon the DRM Report and RPF statement, according to which the appellant was found near a shunting siding with both legs on the railway track, suggesting that he had been run over while crossing the tracks rather than falling from a passenger train.
Analysis of the Law
On limitation, the High Court stressed that the Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 are beneficial and social-welfare legislations intended to compensate victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents.
Accordingly, courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay so that genuine compensation claims are not defeated merely on technical grounds. The Court therefore condoned the entire 786-day delay.
On bona fide passenger status, the Court held that mere non-recovery of a railway ticket is not sufficient by itself to establish that the claimant was travelling without a ticket.
Applying Rina Devi, it held that a claimant may discharge the initial burden through an affidavit setting out the relevant facts, following which the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the claim through cogent evidence.
The Court found the appellant’s evidence materially consistent. His uncle corroborated that he had accompanied him to the station, purchased the ticket and put him on the train.
The discrepancy regarding whether they reached the station at around 1 PM or 2–2:30 PM concerned only the precise timing and did not undermine the consistent evidence regarding the purchase of the ticket and intended journey to Ghaziabad.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon Mohsina v. Union of India, where an 804-day delay was condoned considering the claimant’s weak economic condition, and Brijesh Kumar v. Union of India, where a delay of 1,326 days was condoned due to financial hardship and surrounding circumstances.
On bona fide passenger status, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, holding that non-recovery of a ticket is not by itself fatal and explaining the shifting evidentiary burden. The same principle was noted as having been reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350.
The Court also relied on Dharamawati v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1164, for the proposition that contemporaneous railway records and surrounding circumstances must be considered as a whole rather than isolating individual circumstances to reject an otherwise consistent claim.
Finally, Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2351 was cited to reinforce that the location where an injured person or body is found cannot, by itself, establish that the person was not travelling on the train or that the occurrence was not an untoward incident.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found the Tribunal’s theory that the appellant was a trespasser who had been run over while crossing the railway tracks unsupported by ocular evidence.
Apart from the inference contained in the DRM Report, there was no material conclusively proving that the appellant had been crossing the tracks. Even the appellant’s use of the expression “run over” did not exclude the possibility that he had first fallen from the moving train and thereafter come under its wheels.
The Court further held that merely finding the appellant near a shunting line could not establish that he was a trespasser. Section 2(31) of the Railways Act itself defines “railway” broadly to include lines, sidings, yards and branches used for railway purposes.
Significantly, the Railways had also failed to produce material showing the exact movement of the relevant train.
The location and position of the appellant’s body, without additional evidence, could therefore not conclusively determine how the accident occurred.
The Court consequently held that Sukhmandar Singh was a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment.
It did not itself quantify compensation. Instead, it remanded the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable to Sukhmandar Singh in accordance with law and pass consequential directions.
The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30 September 2026.
Case Details
Case: Sukhmandar Singh v. Union of India
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: FAO 103/2021
CNR: DLHC010029252020
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Reserved: 31 August 2026
Pronounced: 9 September 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant declared a bona fide passenger and accident held an “untoward incident”; Tribunal’s rejection set aside and matter remanded for assessment of compensation.
