Belated DRM reports based on conjectures cannot override contemporaneous police records in "untoward incident" claims.

The appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal's (Tribunal) order dated 16.03.2022, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Sh. Ajay Kumar (the deceased) on 12.02.2012.

The appellants alleged the deceased fell from a running train near Vivek Vihar Station while traveling from Somna to Shahdara.

The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on the grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger (as no ticket was recorded in the jamatalashi/inquest) and that the death was a result of being "run over" while crossing tracks, thus not constituting an "untoward incident".

The Railway Administration’s (DRM) report, which supported the "run over" theory, was initiated 52 months after the accident and submitted 117 months later.

1. Whether the incident in question constitutes an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, regarding the right to appeal.

Definition of an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989, which encompasses accidental falls from trains.

The precedent set in Bhola v. Union of India, which establishes that inordinate delays in DRM reports are fatal to their evidentiary value.

The principle from Union of India v. Rina Devi, which holds that a claimant can discharge the initial burden by filing an affidavit and relevant material (such as a ticket), shifting the onus to the Railways to rebut that evidence.

The Court found that the Tribunal erred by prioritizing a delayed DRM report over contemporaneous police records.

DD entries (No. 11PP and 13PP), the inquest report, and the Naksha Moka (spot map) consistently described the event as a "train accident" and showed the body lying along the track, contradicting the "run over while crossing" theory.

The Court held the DRM report lacked evidentiary value due to a cumulative delay of nearly 10 years, noting it was based on mere conjecture.

The Court observed that the appellants produced a valid journey ticket on the day of the incident.

The Court ruled that the absence of the ticket in the jamatalashi (personal search) is not a statutory ground to invalidate the ticket’s existence, especially when the Railways failed to prove the ticket was fabricated or provide any rebuttal to the claimants' affidavit.

The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to calculate and disburse the appropriate compensation within two months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.05.2026.