01Facts
On 16.02.2016, the deceased, Sh. Purushotam, was traveling from Azadpur to Narela via EMU Train No. 64001 after allegedly purchasing a valid journey ticket
p. 3 · ¶ 3During the journey, he fell from the running train, sustained fatal injuries, and was declared "brought dead" at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital
p. 3 · ¶ 3The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim on 09.08.2018, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the event an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989
p. 2 · ¶ 2The Tribunal relied heavily on a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report and a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) that classified the deceased as a "pedestrian" and a "trespasser"
pp. 3-4 · ¶ 5, 10The appellants challenged this, citing contemporaneous medical and police records
p. 3 · ¶ 402Issues
i.1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident?
p. 4 · ¶ 7ii.2. Whether the alleged incident constitutes an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989?
p. 4 · ¶ 703Law Applied
The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 regarding the right to appeal
p. 2 · ¶ 1definitions of "untoward incident" and "bona fide passenger" under the Railways Act, 1989
p. 2 · ¶ 2the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which established that the mere absence of a ticket is not conclusive evidence of a passenger not being bona fide, and that once an initial burden is discharged by the claimant, the onus shifts to the Railways
p. 6 · ¶ 13Bhola v. Union of India (2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486, establishing that a significant delay in filing a DRM report (14 months or more) detracts from its evidentiary value
p. 5 · ¶ 10Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23
04Reasoning
The Court found that the Tribunal erred by prioritizing the DRM report over contemporaneous evidence.
p. 5 · ¶ 10It noted that the DRM report was prepared two years after the incident, which, per Bhola v. Union of India, significantly diminished its reliability
p. 5 · ¶ 10In contrast, immediate records such as the DD entry, MLC, and post-mortem report consistently classified the event as a "railway accident"
p. 4 · ¶ 8-9Regarding the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger, the Court observed that no jamatalashi (body search) was conducted upon recovery of the body; thus, the non-recovery of a ticket could not be treated as determinative
p. 6 · ¶ 13Following the principle in Rina Devi, the Court held that the appellants discharged their initial burden by pleading the purchase of a ticket, and the respondent failed to provide evidence to rebut this presumption
p. 6 · ¶ 13-14The Court further rejected the "trespasser" classification in the DAR as a post-incident assumption unsupported by any eyewitness or direct evidence
p. 5 · ¶ 10-1105Holding
The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an "untoward incident"
pp. 6-7 · ¶ 15-16The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and award compensation to the appellants in accordance with the law
p. 7 · ¶ 16The Court directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 30.04.2026 and ordered the disbursement of compensation within two months of the order
p. 7 · ¶ 16-17Original Court PDF
Krishna Devi & OrsvsUnion Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
