Sweety Kumari & Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 21.08.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
Uploaded on : 01.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010761382023

+ FAO 199/2023

SWEETY KUMARI & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr.
Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal
Dixit, Advocates

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 against the judgment dated
30.06.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.
OA(IIu)/GZB/297/2018.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is that on 01.11.2017,
one VivekKumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) aged about
35 years, was travelling from Ghaziabad to Chhapra by train on
strength of a valid journey ticket. It was pleaded that, due to heavy
Signature Not Verified
FAO 199/2023 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

rush in the compartment, he was standing near the door and, when the
train reached near Dasna Flyover, Ghaziabad , he fell from the running
train on account of a sudden jerk, sustained grievous injuries and died
at the spot. The journey ticket was stated to be lost in the incident.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal
erred in rejecting the claim on account of non-recovery of the journey
ticket, despite the specific case of the appellants that the ticket had
been lost in the occurrence. It is submitted that the deceased had left
Ghaziabad for Chhapra on 01.11.2017, thereafter went missing, and
was ultimately found dead at Dasna Flyover, while the panchnama
and post-mortem report establish the occurrence and the fatal injuries.
It is further submitted that the DRM inquiry was conducted after an
unexplained delay of about one year and five months and, therefore, its
conclusion could not displace the contemporaneous police and medical
record.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits
that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and no
independent eyewitness has been produced to establish that he had
boarded the train or fallen therefrom. It is further submitted that there
was no entry regarding the occurrence in the Station Master’s records
and that the DRM inquiry did not find any material establishing that
the deceased died on account of a fall from a running train.
5. Coming first to the question whether the deceased was a bona
fide passenger, the appellants’specific case is that the deceased was
travelling on strength of a valid journey ticket, which was lost in the
occurrence, and the same cannot by itself, conclude the issue against
Signature Not Verified
FAO 199/2023 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

the appellants. In this regard, a gainful reference may be made to the
1
decision of the Supreme Court in “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ” as
2
well as the recent ruling in “ Lata v. Union of India ”, wherein it was
reiterated that the claimant is only required to discharge the initial
burden by placing the foundational facts on record
6. Applying the aforesaid to the present case, the appellants have
relied upon the affidavit of BharatSingh , father of the deceased, who
appeared as AW-1, wherein he specifically stated that his son was
travelling with a valid journey ticket and that the said ticket was lost at
the time of the incident. Thus, the assertion regarding the purchase and
possession of the journey ticket is not merely a plea in the claim
application but stated on oath by the father of the deceased. This is
precisely the nature of evidence contemplated in Rina Devi (supra) for
discharging the initial burden. Once such an affidavit was brought on
record, the burden shifted upon the Railways to show, from the facts
or attending circumstances, that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger and they have not brought any such cogent material on
record.
7. The next question is whether the death of the deceased occurred
in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read
with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”).
8. On this aspect, the contemporaneous material assumes
significance. The police record shows that the dead body was found at

1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2
2026 SCC OnLine 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 199/2023 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

Dasna Flyover, Km. 131/24-26, after information regarding the
incident was received and the panchnama was prepared. The body was
subjected to post-mortem examination on 02.11.2017.
9. The principal material relied upon by the Railways to dispute
the manner of occurrence is the DRM inquiry report dated 22.04.2019.
The incident, however, took place on 01.11.2017. The inquiry report
itself records that no information regarding the occurrence had been
entered in the Station Master’s offices at Dasna and Mehrauli , that
Form No. 01 had not been prepared and that, consequently, Form No.
02 was also not prepared. Thus, there was no contemporaneous
railway inquiry recording the circumstances of the occurrence.
10. Additionally, the delay in the DRM inquiry is not a mere
procedural irregularity in the facts of the present case. The aspect of
belated filing of a DRM report has been commented upon by this
3
Court in “ Bhola v. 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

3
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486
Signature Not Verified
FAO 199/2023 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

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 KalandiCharan Sahoo and Anr. vs. General Manager, South-
East Central Railways, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017.”
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 prepared after an inordinate delay, is of
no evidentiary value and cannot override the contemporaneous record
available on file.
11. The same reasoning applies with greater force here. The DRM
inquiry was completed only on 22.04.2019, nearly one year and five
months after the death of the deceased. More importantly, the inquiry
did not uncover any contemporaneous railway record contradicting the
occurrence pleaded by the appellants. On the contrary, the report itself
records the absence of the prescribed forms and the absence of any
Daily Diary entry at the concerned stations.Furthermore, there is no
material on record establishing any alternative cause of death, whereas
the DRM report merely records that the exact manner of the fall could
not be established during the belated inquiry.The absence of an
eyewitness to the actual fall also does not, in these facts, justify
rejection of the claim.
12. Hence, on a cumulative consideration of the contemporaneous
police and medical record, the location where the body was found, the
absence of any established alternative cause of death, and the limited
Signature Not Verified
FAO 199/2023 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39

evidentiary value of the belated DRM inquiry, this Court is of the view
that the death of the deceased resulted from an “accidental fall” from a
train and therefore constituted an “untoward incident” within the
meaning of the Act.
13. Accordingly, 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 appellants 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 before the Tribunal at the first instance on
21.09.2026.
14. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
15. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER01, 2026
na

Signature Not Verified
FAO 199/2023 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39