Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Sh. Virender vs. Union of India

First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:7396Decided 1 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
FAO 132/2019CNR: DLHC010163242019
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Background

On 08.02.2017, Virender boarded a passenger train from Okhla Railway Station for Palwal after buying a valid ticket. When the train stopped at Tughlakabad, he got down for water; the train started moving and while trying to re-board, he fell and sustained grievous injuries, later having his left leg amputated below the knee. His bag containing his clothes and ticket was lost in the incident. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed his compensation claim, reasoning it was implausible he would keep his ticket in his bag for such a short daytime journey.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court noted the Tribunal had already found the fall to be an "untoward incident," which was unchallenged and final, leaving only the bona fide passenger question. Applying Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court held that the appellant's consistent account, reiterated in his contemporaneous GRP statement, that he bought a Rs. 15 ticket and kept it in his bag due to fear of losing it, was sufficient to discharge his initial burden, especially since the Railways led no evidence to prove he travelled ticketless. The Court also relied on its own precedent in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, where a claimant's affidavit alone was accepted as sufficient absent contrary evidence from the Railways. The impugned judgment was set aside and the case remanded for computation of compensation.

Lesson Learnt

A passenger's own consistent, contemporaneous account of having purchased and then lost a ticket can be enough to establish bona fide passenger status; the Tribunal cannot reject a claim merely by speculating about how a person would ordinarily carry a ticket.

Sh. Virender vs. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware