Krishna Devi & Ors vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 20.03.2026
Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
Uploaded on : 15.04.2026

+ FAO 151/2019

KRISHNA DEVI & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Navin Kumar and Mr. Pappu
Singh, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with
Ms. Uparita Suryadarshin, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 15935/2019 (seeking condonation of delay of 90 days in re-
filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/ appellants seek
condonation of delay of 90 days in re-filing the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant belongs
to an economically weaker section and due to paucity of funds, was unable
to arrange the required amount for getting the annexures typed and
translated.
3. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
and guided by the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court
finds that the appellants have been able to show sufficient cause for the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 1 of 7

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

delay in re-filing the present appeal.
4. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 90 days in re-
filing is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL. 15936/2019 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 15937/2019 (seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in filing
the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed
and the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of accordingly.
FAO 151/2019
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/295/2017, titled as
“ Smt. Krishna Devi & Others. 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”).

Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 2 of 7

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

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that
on 16.02.2016, one Sh. Purushotam (hereinafter referred to as the
“deceased”), along with his friend, was travelling from Azadpur to Narela ,
by EMU Train No. 64001, after purchasing a valid journey ticket, and while
undertaking the said journey, he fell from the running train and sustained
fatal injuries. He was then taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital,
where he was declared as “brought dead”.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim application
despite the contemporaneous material on record which clearly establishes
that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a “railway accident”. It is further
submitted that mere non-recovery of journey ticket cannot, by itself, be
treated as conclusive of the deceased not being a bona fide passenger. The
DD entries recorded immediately after the incident, along with the MLC and
post-mortem report, clearly demonstrate that the deceased suffered multiple
grievous injuries consistent with a fall from a running train. It is contended
that there is no eyewitness account to support the theory of trespass, and the
reliance placed by the Tribunal on the DRM report is misplaced, as the said
report is based on assumption and not on any direct evidence.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment by contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as
no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. It is
submitted that the deceased has been described as a “pedestrian” in the
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) which indicates that he had trespassed onto
the railway track. It is further contended that the incident occurred due to the
negligence of the deceased and does not fall within the ambit of an
Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 3 of 7

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

“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
evidence on record lends support to the appellants’ version. The earliest
information regarding the incident, as reflected in the DD entry No. 21 PP,
dated 16.02.2016, recorded at Police Post/ Subzi Mandi Railway Station,
clearly notes that an “injured” person was found near the railway line near
the Azadpur Bus Terminal. Pursuant thereto, the PCR removed the said
person to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, where he was declared as
“brought dead”. The said record, prepared immediately upon arrival,
establishes close proximity to the occurrence and constitutes an important
piece of evidence which cannot be disregarded.
9. The contemporaneous material on record, including the DD entries,
the MLC and the post-mortem report, consistently record the incident as a
“railway accident”, and there is no material on record to suggest anything to
the contrary.
10. The Tribunal has, however, relied upon the DRM report to conclude
that the deceased “met with the above said accident due to his own
negligence on account of entering the railway lines in an illegal manner” and
proceeds on the basis of the said classification and attributes the incident to
trespass, without any evidence. It is also borne out from the record that the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 4 of 7

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

DRM report was prepared after a considerable lapse of time of 2 years after
the incident, which further detracts its evidentiary value. The aspect of
belated filing of a DRM report has been commented upon by this Court in
1
“ 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 . ”
Furthermore, the description of the deceased as a “pedestrian” in the
DAR is a post-incident classification which is set out without any evidence
and thus, cannot be relied upon.
11. The statements of the driver and guard of the concerned train, as
recorded during the inquiry, state that “no accident” was noticed during the
journey, and no information regarding any “run-over” or crossing was
received, and there is thus, no direct evidence on record to establish that the
deceased was crossing the railway track.


1
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486
Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 5 of 7

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

12. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in placing reliance on the DRM
report and DAR while disregarding the contemporaneous record and
medical evidence. Once it is established from the record that the deceased
sustained fatal injuries in a railway occurrence, the incident would squarely
fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the Act, unless the
case falls within any of the statutory exceptions.
13. Insofar as the issue of bona fide travel is concerned, it is not in dispute
that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. It is,
however, borne out from the record that no jamatalashi of the deceased was
conducted. However, in view of the settled law in “ Union of India vs. Rina
2
Devi ”, the absence of recovery of a ticket cannot, by itself, be treated as
conclusive. In the present case, the appellant has discharged this initial
burden, as it has been specifically pleaded in the claim application that the
deceased was travelling from Azadpur to Narela along with his companion
after purchasing “valid” journey tickets. The Tribunal has, however,
proceeded to reject the claim primarily on the ground of non-recovery of the
journey ticket. The said approach does not take into account that no
jamatalashi was conducted, and therefore, the absence of the ticket cannot
be treated as determinative.
14. Equally significant is the fact that the respondent has failed to prove
otherwise and no material has been brought on record to rebut the case set
up by the appellants.
15. This Court, in view of the above, is of the considered opinion that the
requirements laid down in Rina Devi (supra) stand duly satisfied in the
present case, and the respondent has failed to rebut the presumption arising

2
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 6 of 7

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

therefrom.
16. 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
before the Tribunal at the first instance on 30.04.2026.
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
APRIL 15, 2026
kk
Signature Not Verified
FAO 151/2019 Page 7 of 7

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