Delayed DRM reports cannot override contemporaneous records or specific ticket particulars to disprove bona fide passenger status.

The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Abhay Kumar Mishra, filed a claim application following an incident on 20.12.2011.

The deceased, travelling from Delhi to Siwan on a reserved ticket (PNR No. 2430180156), allegedly fell from the Amrapali Express near Jaswant Nagar Railway Station and died.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 30.03.2022, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an "untoward incident"

The appellants challenged this before the High Court with a 200-day delay, citing economic hardship and illiteracy.

The respondent argued the deceased was "run over" while trespassing, citing a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report and the non-recovery of the physical journey ticket.

1. Whether the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the incident falls within the definition of an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied the principle from Mohsina vs. Union of India, which permits condonation of significant delays for claimants from weak economic backgrounds.

Regarding the merits, the Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that once a claimant provides material (such as PNR details and oral testimony) to show travel, the burden of proof shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide status.

Additionally, per Bhola vs. Union of India, a DRM report prepared after an inordinate delay (exceeding the 5-year record retention policy) lacks evidentiary value and cannot override contemporaneous records like the Station Master’s memo.

The Court first condoned the 200-day delay, citing the beneficial nature of the legislation and the appellants' poverty.

On the "untoward incident" issue, the Court found the Tribunal’s reliance on the DRM report flawed because it was prepared nine years after the incident, long after the five-year record-retention period had expired.

The contemporaneous Station Master’s memo did not mention a "run-over" or trespass, making the Railway's later theory conjectural.

Regarding the bona fide passenger status, the Court held that the appellants discharged their initial burden by providing specific ticket particulars and PNR details, which remained consistent throughout.

The Court noted that the deceased had already travelled 300 km from the origin point when the body was found, and the Railways failed to produce any evidence (like the Train Signal Register) to rebut the claim or explain the passenger's presence on the track otherwise.

The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within two months of the order.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.04.2026.