A lost ticket and belated DRM inquiry cannot defeat proof of an untoward railway incident.

The appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 30 June 2022 in O.A. No. OA(IIu)/GZB/297/2018 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

They claimed that Vivek Kumar, aged approximately 35 years, was travelling from Ghaziabad to Chhapra on 1 November 2017 with a valid journey ticket.

Due to overcrowding, he was allegedly standing near the train door and fell from the moving train near Dasna Flyover after a sudden jerk, sustaining fatal injuries.

The ticket was stated to have been lost in the incident.

The Tribunal rejected the claim, principally relying on the non-recovery of the ticket and the absence of sufficient proof regarding the fall from the train.

The appellants relied on the police panchnama, post-mortem report, and the affidavit of the deceased’s father.

The Railways relied on a DRM inquiry report dated 22 April 2019, which noted the absence of relevant railway records and eyewitness evidence.

Whether the deceased was a “bona fide passenger” despite the non-recovery of his journey ticket.

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident”—specifically, an accidental fall from a moving train—within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the belated DRM inquiry report could displace the contemporaneous police and medical evidence regarding the occurrence.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents” and statutory liability for compensation.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine 1350, the Court held that a claimant need initially establish foundational facts showing bona fide travel; non-production or loss of the ticket is not, by itself, decisive against the claimant.

The Court also relied on Bhola v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13486, for the principle that a belated DRM inquiry, based on incomplete or unavailable records, cannot override contemporaneous police and medical evidence concerning the accident.

The Court held that the affidavit of Bharat Singh, the deceased’s father, specifically asserting that Vivek Kumar had purchased and possessed a valid journey ticket, discharged the appellants’ initial burden regarding bona fide passenger status.

The burden consequently shifted to the Railways to produce cogent material showing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, which it failed to do.

On the nature of the incident, the Court gave greater evidentiary weight to the contemporaneous police record showing recovery of the body at Dasna Flyover and the post-mortem conducted on 2 November 2017.

The DRM inquiry was completed nearly one year and five months after the incident and itself recorded that no Station Master entries, Form No. 01, or Form No. 02 had been prepared.

Since the inquiry did not establish an alternative cause of death and merely stated that the precise manner of the fall could not be determined, it could not displace the contemporaneous evidence.

The absence of an eyewitness to the actual fall was also not considered fatal in the circumstances.

On cumulative consideration, the Court found that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a train and therefore constituted an untoward incident under the Railways Act.

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21 September 2026.