Delhi High Court Restores Railway Compensation for Man Killed After Train Fall; Holds Missing Return Ticket Alone Cannot Disprove His Bona Fide Passenger Status
Train’s “Return Loop” Becomes Crucial: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection of Fatal Railway Accident Claim
Facts
The appeal arose from the death of Himanshu Sharma, who had travelled from Gajraula to Dehradun on 19 June 2023 in search of employment.
According to his family, Himanshu telephoned his father the following day and informed him that he had been unable to arrange suitable work at Dehradun and was therefore returning home.
While travelling back towards Gajraula by Train No. 14042, Mussoorie Express, he allegedly fell from the running train between Fazalpur and Muzzampur Railway Stations due to a sudden jerk and rush inside the compartment and suffered fatal injuries.
During the inquest, the authorities recovered from his body a mobile phone, cash and a railway ticket bearing No. 63987978 for his onward journey from Gajraula to Dehradun dated 19 June 2023.
However, his return journey ticket was not recovered.
The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the family’s claim. It held that because no return ticket had been recovered, there was no eyewitness to the fall and the DRM report did not support the family’s version, neither Himanshu’s status as a bona fide passenger nor an “untoward incident” had been proved.
His family challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The High Court identified two central questions:
- Was Himanshu Sharma a bona fide railway passenger when the incident occurred?
- Did his death result from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989?
The case therefore required the Court to determine whether non-recovery of the return ticket and absence of an eyewitness could, by themselves, defeat a railway compensation claim despite other circumstantial evidence supporting the journey.
Appellants’ Arguments
The family argued that the Tribunal had wrongly treated the missing return ticket as virtually conclusive proof against Himanshu’s status as a bona fide passenger.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, they argued that mere absence of a ticket from the deceased’s body cannot automatically establish that he was travelling without one.
They pointed to three important circumstances:
- the onward Gajraula–Dehradun ticket was actually recovered from Himanshu’s body;
- his father testified that Himanshu had called him on 20 June and said he was returning home; and
- his body was subsequently found beside the railway line on that route.
According to the appellants, these foundational facts discharged their initial burden, after which it was for the Railways to produce evidence rebutting the claim.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India argued that the only ticket recovered from Himanshu related to his outward journey on 19 June 2023, not his alleged return journey on 20 June.
There was therefore no documentary evidence directly establishing that he had boarded a train for his return journey.
The Railways further relied upon the absence of an eyewitness, the location of the body between railway tracks and the alleged inconsistency in train timings to contend that the family had failed to establish an accidental fall from the Mussoorie Express.
Analysis of the Law
Missing Ticket Is Not Conclusive
The High Court found that the Tribunal had approached the case too narrowly by concentrating on the absence of the return ticket.
The evidence extended “considerably beyond the mere question of recovery of a ticket.”
The onward journey ticket recovered from Himanshu’s body was repeatedly documented in the recovery memo, jamatalashi proceedings, investigation papers and even the DRM report.
Therefore, the fact that Himanshu had actually travelled from Gajraula to Dehradun immediately before his death was undisputed.
Father’s Testimony Was Important Circumstantial Evidence
The Court then considered the evidence of Himanshu’s father, Tek Chand.
Although he was not an eyewitness to the accident, he consistently stated that Himanshu had called him on 20 June 2023, saying that he had found no employment in Dehradun and was returning home.
The Railways produced no cogent material to discredit this statement and offered no alternative explanation for Himanshu’s presence near the railway track between Fazalpur and Muzzampur in the early hours of 21 June.
Initial Burden Versus Railway’s Burden to Rebut
Relying upon Union of India v. Rina Devi and the recent Supreme Court decision in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, the High Court explained that claimants are initially required to establish the foundational facts supporting bona fide travel.
Once that initial burden is discharged, the evidentiary burden shifts.
Here, the family had produced:
- the recovered onward ticket;
- the father’s testimony concerning Himanshu’s return journey; and
- official inquest records.
Beyond pointing to the missing return ticket, the Railways produced no evidence rebutting those circumstances.
The High Court therefore expressly held that Himanshu had been established to be a bona fide passenger.
The Crucial “Return Loop” Evidence
The second major error concerned the Railway Claims Tribunal’s interpretation of the train timings.
The Tribunal noted that Himanshu’s body was first noticed by the loco pilot of another train at approximately 1:35 a.m., whereas Train No. 14042 allegedly crossed the relevant location at approximately 1:49 a.m.
On that basis, it treated the family’s account as improbable.
But the High Court discovered that the Tribunal had not considered the complete movement of Train No. 14042.
The Train Signal Register showed that the Mussoorie Express had:
- reached Muzzampur at 12:50 a.m.;
- reached Fazalpur at 12:53 a.m.;
- reached Najibabad at 1:02 a.m.;
- departed Najibabad at 1:32 a.m. on its return loop;
- reached Fazalpur again at 1:40 a.m.; and
- reached Muzzampur again at 1:51 a.m..
This “return loop” fundamentally changed the evidentiary picture.
The Tribunal had focused on the later passage of the train around 1:49 a.m. but ignored its earlier movement through the same area between approximately 12:50 and 12:53 a.m.
Thus, Himanshu could have fallen during the train’s earlier movement towards Najibabad, with his body subsequently being noticed at 1:35 a.m.
The later passage of the same train therefore did not disprove the family’s case.
Precedent Analysis
Union of India v. Rina Devi
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 was central to the determination of bona fide passenger status.
The High Court applied the principle that non-recovery of a ticket is not, by itself, sufficient to negate a railway compensation claim. The claimant must establish foundational circumstances supporting travel, after which the Railways may rebut those circumstances with contrary evidence.
Lata v. Union of India
The Court also relied upon Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, reiterating the burden-of-proof framework applicable to railway accident compensation claims.
The High Court found that the family had crossed the required evidentiary threshold while the Railways had failed to produce evidence rebutting the case beyond relying upon the absence of the return ticket.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court viewed the evidence cumulatively rather than in isolation.
The onward ticket proved that Himanshu had actually travelled to Dehradun. His father’s testimony explained why he was returning. His body was discovered along the relevant railway route. The Railways offered no convincing alternative explanation.
Most importantly, the complete train movement records revealed a plausible chronology that the Tribunal had overlooked.
The High Court further emphasised that the Railways Act is beneficial legislation.
Accordingly, a genuine compensation claim should not be defeated merely because the timings appearing in railway records do not perfectly correspond with the claimant’s version.
The movement of trains and the time when a body is first discovered will not necessarily coincide precisely with the actual time of the accident. In the absence of positive contrary evidence, such discrepancies cannot by themselves defeat a genuine claim.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the family’s appeal and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dismissing the compensation claim.
It held that Himanshu Sharma had been sufficiently established as a bona fide passenger and found that the Tribunal had incorrectly evaluated the train timings while determining whether the death arose from an untoward incident.
The matter was therefore remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable to the family in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.
Importantly, the High Court did not itself quantify the compensation; it restored the family’s entitlement to have compensation assessed by the Tribunal.
Case Details
Case: Tek Chand & Anr. v. Union of India
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: FAO 175/2025
CNR: DLHC010414002025
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Reserved: 28 July 2026
Pronounced: 15 September 2026
Provision: Section 23, Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987; Railways Act, 1989
Result: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s rejection set aside; matter remanded for assessment and disbursement of railway compensation within two months.
