Jagdish Mishra & Ors. vs Union Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 13.04.2026
Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
Uploaded on : 15.04.2026

+ FAO 38/2023

JAGDISH MISHRA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood,
Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr.
Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 7654/2023 (Seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in
filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/ appellants seek
condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that appellants are poor and
illiterate persons, and belong to an economically weaker section and, due to
paucity of funds, were unable to get in contact with a counsel and obtain
timely legal advice.
1
3. It is noteworthy that in “ Mohsina vs. Union of India ” , a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal, taking

1
(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003
Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

into account the weak economic condition of the appellant/ claimant.
4. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
and guided by the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, as well as
the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court finds that the
appellants have been able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the
present appeal.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay of
200 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The application is disposed of accordingly.
FAO 38/2023

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/144/2021, titled as
“ Sh. Jagdish Mishra & Ors. vs. Union of India ”.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased
was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the alleged incident an “untoward
incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”).
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that
on 19.12.2011, one Sh. Abhay Kumar Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”), along with his maternal aunt and one Sh. Vivek , had booked a
train journey from Delhi to Siwan by Train No. 15708 ( Amrapali Express)
on the strength of a reserved journey ticket bearing No. 66543091, under
PNR No. 2430180156, however, owing to heavy fog, the said train was
Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

delayed and was boarded by them on 20.12.2011, and during the course of
the said journey, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train near
Jaswant Nagar Railway Station, as a result of which, he sustained fatal
injuries and died.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite
sufficient material on record establishing that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and had suffered an accidental fall from a running train. It is
submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contemporaneous
railway record, including the Station Master’s memo, which constitutes the
earliest account of the incident, and has instead placed undue reliance on the
DRM report prepared after an inordinate delay of more than nine years. It is
further submitted that the non-recovery of the journey ticket cannot be
treated as fatal to the claim, particularly when the appellants have placed on
record the ticket particulars as well as the PNR details. It is contended that
once the initial burden stood discharged, the onus shifted upon the Railways
to disprove the case, which it has failed to do.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment by contending that no journey ticket was recovered from the
person of the deceased and that there exists a discrepancy in the timing of
the alleged incident. It is submitted that the findings recorded in the DRM
report indicate that the deceased was not travelling by any train and was
rather “run over” by an unknown train while crossing the railway track. It is
further contended that the nature of injuries, as recorded in the post-mortem
report, is inconsistent with a case of accidental fall from a train, and
therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the case does not fall within the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

ambit of an “untoward incident” under the Act.
6. This Court has heard the arguments of both the parties and perused
the material on record.
7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for
consideration are that whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and
whether the alleged incident was an “untoward incident” as defined under
the Act.
8. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the contemporaneous
record lends support to the appellants’ version. The Station Master’s memo
dated 21.12.2011 records that an unknown dead body was found lying on
the track at KM No. 1173/32-1173/30 near Jaswant Nagar Railway Station.
The said record, being the earliest account of the incident, does not indicate
trespass or run-over. The Tribunal has, however, discarded the
contemporaneous record and relied upon an alleged discrepancy in train
timing without production of the relevant Train Signal Register (TSR) or
movement record for the relevant dates, and thus, the said approach is
unsustainable.
9. Furthermore, the reliance placed on the DRM report is wholly
misplaced. It is borne out from the record that the DRM report was prepared
after a lapse of more than 9 years from the date of the incident, which
detracts its evidentiary value, and it is an admitted position that as per the
Railways’ own record retention policy, the relevant data is preserved only
for a limited period of 5 years. Consequently, when verification was sought
after more than nine years, the record was admittedly not available. In such
circumstances, any conclusion drawn from the said report regarding the
manner of occurrence, including the theory of “run-over” by an unknown
Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

train is purely conjectural and cannot be sustained, particularly when the
inquiry itself was conducted at a stage when the primary evidence had
already been lost.
10. Therefore, the said report is not based on contemporaneous material
and has been prepared at a stage when the primary record itself was no
longer available. The aspect of belated filing of a DRM report has been
2
commented upon by this Court in “ Bhola vs. Union of India ” , the relevant
extracts wherefrom are as under:
“ 2. There is a delay of 14 months in submitting the DRM Report….
4. The claim petition was filed on 27.07.2014, the DRM Inquiry was
initiated thereafter and a report was filed 7 months later. The delay in
initiating an inquiry is fatal to the facts of the case because what
essentially needs to be gathered is what happened on the date of accident.
The medical reports and the police records show that an accident
happened on 08.10.2012 and the cause of the accident was, the appellant
having been fallen from a moving train. The DRM Report does not address
any of these aspects. On the contrary it says that since no ticket was
produced to support the claim of the appellant, of him being a bona fide
passenger, therefore by conjecture, he could have well suffered a self-
inflicted injury while crossing the railway tracks. Reliance was placed
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and
Anr. vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur in Civil
Appeal No. 5608/2017. ”
11. It has been consistently held that delay in initiating an inquiry is fatal,
as what is required to be ascertained is what transpired at the time of the
incident. A delayed inquiry, based on incomplete or unavailable record,
cannot form the basis of denial of a claim. The DRM report, therefore, being
based on conjectures and prepared after an inordinate delay, is of no

2
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486
Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

evidentiary value and cannot override the contemporaneous record available
on file. In the absence of any cogent material to establish a case of “trespass
or run-over”, therefore, and in view of the contemporaneous record
indicating a railway occurrence, the incident in question is liable to be
treated as an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
12. Insofar as the issue of bona fide travel is concerned, it is not in dispute
that the journey ticket was not recovered from the person of the deceased at
the time of the inquest. However, the record reveals that the appellants have
consistently disclosed the specific ticket particulars, i.e., Ticket No.
66543091, booked under PNR No. 2430180156, in respect of the journey
from Delhi to Siwan . The said particulars are not vague or general
assertions, but precise details which have remained consistent throughout
the proceedings.
13. It has further come on record that verification of the said ticket could
not be carried out by the Railways on account of its own default in carrying
out delayed verification. Thus, the absence of verification is not attributable
to any deficiency on the part of the appellants, but is a consequence of the
respondent’s own inability to produce records after an inordinate lapse of
time.
14. The oral evidence of AW-1, Sh. Jagdish Mishra , the father of the
deceased, clearly states that the deceased had undertaken the journey
pursuant to the said booking. The said testimony has remained unshaken in
cross-examination and no material contradiction has been elicited, and no
suggestion has been put to the witness that the deceased was not travelling
by train.

Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

15. An additional circumstance which merits consideration is that the
journey in question was from Delhi to Siwan , covering approximately 900
kilometres, whereas the body of the deceased was found near Jaswant
Nagar , at a distance of approximately 600 kilometres from Siwan . This fact
has not been disputed by the respondent. In the absence of any alternative
explanation and in view of the respondent’s failure to produce any contrary
record, the said circumstance clearly establishes that the deceased had
travelled a substantial distance of 300 kilometres by the said train prior to
the incident. The respondent has neither produced any record to show that
the deceased was not travelling on the said train nor led any evidence to
establish an alternative version.
16. In this backdrop, the principles laid down in “ Union of India v. Rina
3
Devi ” squarely apply. Once the claimants place material indicating travel,
the burden shifts upon the Railways to disprove the same. In the present
case, the appellants have discharged the initial burden through specific ticket
particulars, PNR details, and oral evidence, whereas the respondent has
failed to rebut the same. The entire defence rests on non-recovery of ticket
and a delayed DRM report, both of which, for the reasons already noted,
cannot be determinative. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that
the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.
17. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the
amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law
and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months
from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed

3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11

before the Tribunal at the first instance on 30.04.2026.
18. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
19. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.



(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2026
kk


Signature Not Verified
FAO 38/2023 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
19:29:11