Delhi High Court · 2025-12-19
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY vs DEEPAK MEHRA
- Citation / case number
- FAO-135/2023 2025:DHC:11680
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY
- Respondent
- DEEPAK MEHRA
Judgment text excerpt
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 19th December, 2025 + FAO 135/2023 & CM APPL. 29785/2023 & CM APPL. 29787/2023 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Komal Yadav, Mr. Prince Yadav, Advocates. versus DEEPAK MEHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anshuman Rai, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 2. Challenge is to the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) whereby claim petition filed by respondent Deepak Mehra has been allowed. 3. Facts lie in a very narrow compass. 4. Respondent Deepak Mehra (Claimant) was travelling in Uttar Sampark Kranti Express (Train No.12446). He was having a valid train ticket of journey from “Beas to Delhi” which had been issued on 03.05.2019. When the train reached Sadar Bazar Railway Station, Delhi in the morning of 04.05.2019, on account of heavy rush and sudden jerk, the claimant, who was standing near the door, fell down and received serious Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO 135/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:20.12.2025 15:43:01 injuries. He was immediately rushed to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi where, unfortunately, his both legs had to be amputated below the knees, on account of injuries suffered by him in the abovesaid incident. He was, eventually, discharged on 20.05.2019 though, thereafter, he underwent Plastic Surgery as well. 5. The claim was filed on the premise that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the Railways as they failed to take requisite care and safety precaution for its passengers. 6. The claim was resisted