Delhi High Court · 2026-02-09
GANESH vs UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAY) THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
- Citation / case number
- FAO-173/2014 2026:DHC:1077
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- GANESH
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAY) THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 07.02.2026 Pronounced on : 09.02.2026 Uploaded on : 09.02.2026 + FAO 173/2014 GANESH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAY) THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER .....Respondent Through: Ms. Leena Tuteja, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI with Ms. Ishita Kadyan, 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, on behalf of the appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter “the Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA(IIu) 186/2012. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the injured, Ganesh, preferred a claim application stating that on 13.01.2011, he had undertaken a train journey from Dausa Railway Station to Old Delhi Railway Station after purchasing a valid IInd Class Ordinary railway journey ticket. He completed the journey from Dausa Railway Station to Rewari Railway Station, whereafter he boarded passenger train to travel from Rewari Railway Station to Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 173/2014 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:44:33 Junction. When the train reached Delhi Cantt. Railway Station, it was overcrowded and, due to a sudden jerk, he accidentally fell from the running train and sustained a crush injury to his right leg, leading to its amputation below the knee. 3. The claim application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered, and the veracity of the appellant’s claim of having fallen from the running train was also doubted. 4. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that