Facts
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
Source reference: p.3, para. 3During the journey, he fell from the running train, sustained fatal injuries, and was declared "brought dead" at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital
Source reference: p.3, para. 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
Source reference: p.2, para. 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"
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 5, 10The appellants challenged this, citing contemporaneous medical and police records
Source reference: p.3, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident?
Source reference: p.4, para. 72. Whether the alleged incident constitutes an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989?
Source reference: p.4, para. 7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 regarding the right to appeal
Source reference: p.2, para. 1definitions of "untoward incident" and "bona fide passenger" under the Railways Act, 1989
Source reference: p.2, para. 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
Source reference: p.6, para. 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
Source reference: p.5, para. 10Reasoning
The Court found that the Tribunal erred by prioritizing the DRM report over contemporaneous evidence.
Source reference: p.5, para. 10It noted that the DRM report was prepared two years after the incident, which, per Bhola v. Union of India, significantly diminished its reliability
Source reference: p.5, para. 10In contrast, immediate records such as the DD entry, MLC, and post-mortem report consistently classified the event as a "railway accident"
Source reference: p.4, para. 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
Source reference: p.6, para. 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
Source reference: p.6, para. 13-14The Court further rejected the "trespasser" classification in the DAR as a post-incident assumption unsupported by any eyewitness or direct evidence
Source reference: p.5, para. 10-11Holding
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"
The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and award compensation to the appellants in accordance with the law
Source reference: p.7, para. 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
Source reference: p.7, para. 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