The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Sunaina Devi seeking railway compensation following the tragic death of her husband, Shambhu Manjhi. Presided over by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, the court upheld a 2014 decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal that denied the damages request related to a fatal fall from a moving train. The case was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Here are the key details of the court ruling. The Delhi High Court dismissed the railway compensation appeal filed by the widow of a deceased passenger. The court upheld the 2014 Railway Claims Tribunal decision denying damages for a fatal fall from a moving train. The journey ticket was purchased at 17:47 hours on the same day the train departed at 13:18 hours, rendering it invalid proof of travel. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri ruled that the appellant failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
In the judgment delivered on September 3, 2026,
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the appellant failed to meet the essential requirement of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as mandated by Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The core issue in the case was an irreconcilable timeline discovered by the court regarding the journey ticket. The ticket produced by the claimant as proof of travel was purchased at 17:47 hours, whereas the train in question had already departed from the station at 13:18 hours on the very same day. Because the ticket was issued hours after the train left, the court concluded it could not serve as valid evidence of bona fide travel on that specific service.
While the court acknowledged the well-known legal precedent set in
Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, it carefully distinguished the current matter.
The bench emphasized that a ticket issued after a train departure cannot be accepted as proof of valid travel. Furthermore, the court cited the ruling in
Mohammad Azam v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine Del 6413) to reinforce its decision. Alongside the timeline discrepancy of the ticket, the court also pointed out other inconsistencies regarding the sequence of events following the incident. These timeline gaps further undermined the overall credibility of the claim brought against the Union of India and the co-respondents, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
