Devdutt & Ors. vs Union Of India
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 25.09.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : 30.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010590932025
+ FAO 228/2025
DEVDUTT & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr.Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with
Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, Ms. Usha
Jamwal and Mr. Mohd. Asif,
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
08.01.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application
No. OA/II(u)/DLI/31/2024, whereby the claim application filed by the
appellants on account of the death of one Rajendra Singh (hereinafter
referred to as the “deceased”) came to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is that on 21.09.2018,
the deceased was travelling from Ghaziabad to Maripat on the strength
of a valid journey ticket. It was pleaded that he had boarded an EMU
passenger train and, owing to a sudden jerk and rush in the
compartment, accidentally fell from the running train between
Chipiyana Burj and Maripat . He sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed to the same. The appellants, being his children, thereafter
approached the Tribunal seeking compensation under the Railways
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
3. The claim was contested by the respondent, which disputed both
the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger and the nature of the
occurrence of the incident. It was contended that no journey ticket had
been recovered from the deceased. The Tribunal, by way of the
impugned judgment, accepted the respondent’s version and dismissed
the claim application. The Tribunal placed substantial reliance on the
non-recovery of the journey ticket and the conclusion drawn in the
DRM inquiry report that the deceased had been run over while
crossing the railway track.
4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants contends
that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its
proper perspective. It is submitted that the son of the deceased, who
appeared as AW-1, categorically deposed that the deceased was
travelling from Ghaziabad to Maripat in connection with his work and
had purchased a valid journey ticket for the relevant journey. It is
further submitted that the contemporaneous material, including the
gateman’s memo, the panchnama and post-mortem report, establishes
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
the recovery of the deceased’s body and the fatal injuries sustained by
him, but does not establish that he was crossing the railway track.
Learned counsel also assails the reliance placed on the DRM inquiry
report, pointing out that the inquiry was initiated more than five years
after the incident and only after institution of the claim application.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent while defending
the impugned judgment, contends that no journey ticket was recovered
from the deceased and that the material on record supports the
conclusion that he was run over by a train while crossing the railway
track. It is submitted that the appellants have failed to establish that the
deceased had fallen from a passenger train and, consequently, the
claim was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material placed on record.
7. The issues which arise for consideration are whether the
deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the occurrence and
whether his death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the
meaning of the Act.
8. Coming first to the question of the deceased’s status as a bona
fide passenger, the non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself,
be treated as conclusive against the claimants. In “ Union of India v.
1
Rina Devi ” , the Supreme Court held that the initial burden on the
claimants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is
not onerous. Once the relevant facts and circumstances are placed on
record, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim by leading
1
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
cogent evidence. The aforesaid principle has also been reiterated
2
in “ Lata v. Union of India ” and “ Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana
3
&Anr. v. Union of India ” .
9. In the present case, the son of the deceased, who appeared as
AW-1, specifically stated that the deceased was working as a halwai
and was travelling from Ghaziabad to Maripat in connection with his
work. He further deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid
journey ticket for the journey in question. This assertion, made on
oath, was to be considered along with the other circumstances
emerging from the record. The mere fact that the ticket was not
recovered from the deceased could not, without more, be made the
basis for rejecting his status as a bona fide passenger.
10. The next question is whether the death of the deceased occurred
in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act. Section
123(c)(2) of the Act defines an “untoward incident” to include the
accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
Section 124-A provides for compensation in cases of death or injury
resulting from an untoward incident, subject to the exceptions
stipulated therein. The statutory scheme is one of no-fault liability.
Thus, once an accidental fall from a passenger train is established, the
claim cannot be defeated merely on the ground that the deceased was
himself responsible for the occurrence, unless a statutory exception is
made out.
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
3
2026 INSC 1056
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
11. In this regard, the contemporaneous material assumes
significance. The record refers to the memo issued by Gateman Ajit
Kumar Sharma to the Deputy Station Superintendent, Dadri , as well as
the panchnama recording the recovery of the deceased’s body between
kilometre 1422/32-33, near Pulia No. 222 at Maripat Railway Station.
The post-mortem examination conducted on 22.09.2018, vide PMR
No. 1010/2018, records fatal crush injuries and attributes the death to
shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries.
12. The aforesaid material establishes the recovery of the body and
the nature of the injuries which proved fatal. However, neither the
location of the body nor the nature of the injuries, considered in
isolation, establishes that the deceased was crossing the railway track
when he came under a train. The conclusion that a person was run over
while crossing the track is distinct from the conclusion that he first fell
from a moving passenger train and thereafter came under its wheels.
The two possibilities were required to be examined against the entire
record, rather than the physical condition or location of the body being
treated as determinative of the manner of occurrence.
13. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court
4
in “ Ravindra Singh & Anr. v. Union of India ” . In that case, the
Tribunal had inferred that the deceased was run over by a train on the
basis of the nature of the injuries and the position of the body between
the railway tracks. This Court observed that the physical condition or
location of the body cannot, by itself, furnish an inflexible test for
determining whether the deceased had fallen from a train or had been
4
FAO 49/2026, decided on 01.09.2026
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
run over while crossing the railway track. The absence of an
eyewitness account establishing trespass and the delayed DRM inquiry
were also considered relevant while assessing the evidence as a whole.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case,
the panchnama and post-mortem report establish the recovery of the
deceased’s body and the fatal injuries sustained by him, however, these
documents do notestablish that he had entered upon the railway track
while crossing it.
14. Additionally, the evidentiary value of the DRM inquiry report
also requires consideration. The incident occurred on 21.09.2018,
whereas the inquiry was initiated only on 15.03.2024, after institution
of the claim petition on 06.09.2023. The report was submitted on
02.05.2024, nearly five years and seven months after the incident. The
aspect of belated filing of a DRM report has been commented upon by
5
this 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
5
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
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.”
A delayed inquiry, based on incomplete or unavailable record,
cannot form the basis of denial of a claim. Its evidentiary value must
be assessed in the light of the material relied upon and the
circumstances in which the inquiry was conducted. In Sukhabhai
Nanjibhai Makwana ( supra ), the Supreme Court also held that the
Railways cannot take advantage of delay attributable to its own failure
to conduct the statutory inquiry promptly and declined to rely upon a
belated investigation report in the facts of that case.In these
circumstances, the conclusion that the deceased was run over while
crossing the railway track could not have been treated as conclusive
without independent scrutiny of the contemporaneous record.
15. It is true that the absence of an eyewitness to the actual fall does
not, by itself, establish that an accidental fall occurred. Equally,
however, the absence of such an eyewitness cannot be used to presume
that the deceased was crossing the railway track, particularly when that
conclusion is not independently established by cogent evidence. On a
cumulative consideration of the evidence, this Court is of the view that
the Tribunal placed undue weight on the non-recovery of the journey
ticket and accepted the inference of a run-over without adequately
examining whether the contemporaneous material established that the
deceased was crossing the railway track.
16. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12
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 before the Tribunal at the first instance on
18.03.2027.
17. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
18. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 228/2025 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12