Delhi High Court
Smt Rekha & Ors vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 10.04.2026
Pronounced on : 25.04.2026
Uploaded on : 25.04.2026
+ FAO 225/2022
SMT REKHA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood
and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ranvir Singh, SPC with Mr.
Vikas Kumar Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 16.03.2022 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/898/2021, titled as
“Rekha & ors. vs. Union of India”.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased
was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the alleged incident an “untoward
incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”).
3. The brief facts, as stated in the claim application, are that on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 225/2022 Page 1 of 6
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:24:53
12.02.2012, one Sh. Ajay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”),
after purchasing a valid journey ticket, was travelling from Somna to
Shahdara. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased accidentally fell
from the running train near Vivek Vihar Station, and sustained fatal injuries,
as a result of which he died on spot.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by
contending that the Tribunal has erred in disregarding the contemporaneous
material on record, which clearly establishes that the deceased sustained
fatal injuries in a railway accident. It is submitted that the DD entries,
inquest report, Naksha Moka and post-mortem report consistently describe
the occurrence as a “train accident” and there is no material to support the
theory that the deceased was “run-over” while crossing the railway track. It
is further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the journey ticket
merely on the ground that it was not reflected in the jamatalashi. It is also
contended that the reliance placed on the DRM report is misplaced, as the
same is based on assumptions, and was prepared after an inordinate delay.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment by contending that no journey ticket was recovered during the
personal search of the deceased and, therefore, the deceased cannot be
treated as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that the DRM report
concludes that the deceased was crossing the railway track and was run over
by a train, and thus the incident does not fall within the ambit of an
“untoward incident”.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 225/2022 Page 2 of 6
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:24:53
consideration are whether the incident in question constitutes an “untoward
incident” within the meaning of the Act and whether the deceased was a
bona fide passenger.
8. Coming first to the manner of occurrence, the contemporaneous
evidence on record lends support to the appellants’ version. The earliest
information, as reflected in DD No. 11PP records that a person was found
injured near the railway track in the vicinity of Vivek Vihar Railway Station.
The said entry does not attribute the incident to “crossing of the railway
track” or to any specific train. More importantly, DD No. 13PP, recorded
after the Investigating Officer reached the spot, notes that the deceased was
found “lying near the railway track” with multiple injuries and records the
cause as a “train accident”. The inquest report prepared at the spot also
describes the occurrence as a “railway accident” and does not record any
finding that the deceased was crossing the railway track. Furthermore, the
position of the body, as depicted in the Naksha Moka, is along the track and
not across it.
9. The Tribunal has, however, relied upon the DRM report to conclude
that the deceased was crossing the railway track and was run over by a train.
A perusal of the record shows that the DRM inquiry was initiated on
07.07.2016, i.e., after an inordinate delay of about 52 months from the date
of the incident, and was submitted on 26.11.2021, i.e., after a delay of about
117 months. Such a belated inquiry, conducted long after the occurrence and
even after institution of the claim proceedings, lacks contemporaneous basis
and cannot be accorded due evidentiary value. The conclusion that the
deceased was crossing the track is thus purely inferential in nature and
stands in contradiction with the material placed on record, which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 225/2022 Page 3 of 6
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:24:53
consistently describes the incident as a “train accident”. The aspect of
belated filing of a DRM report has been commented upon by this Court in
“Bhola vs. Union of India“1, the relevant extracts wherefrom are as under:
“2. There is a delay of 14 months in submitting the DRM Report…
4. The claim petition was filed on 27.07.2014, the DRM Inquiry was
initiated thereafter and a report was filed 7 months later. The delay in
initiating an inquiry is fatal to the facts of the case because what
essentially needs to be gathered is what happened on the date of
accident. The medical reports and the police records show that an
accident happened on 08.10.2012 and the cause of the accident was, the
appellant having been fallen from a moving train. The DRM Report does
not address any of these aspects. On the contrary it says that since no
ticket was produced to support the claim of the appellant, of him being a
bona fide passenger, therefore by conjecture, he could have well suffered
a self-inflicted injury while crossing the railway tracks. Reliance was
placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan
Sahoo and Anr. vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways,
Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017.”
10. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in placing reliance on the DRM
report while disregarding the primary evidence on record. Once it is
established from the contemporaneous material that the deceased sustained
fatal injuries in a railway accident, the incident would fall within the
definition of an “untoward incident” under the Act, unless the case falls
within any of the statutory exceptions, none of which have been proved in
the present case.
11. Insofar as the issue of bona fide travel is concerned, it is borne out
from the record that the appellants have placed on record the journey ticket
bearing No. AC-97913667 dated 12.02.2012, corresponding to the date and
1
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 13486
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 225/2022 Page 4 of 6
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:24:53
route of travel of the deceased from Somna to Delhi Shahdara. The said
ticket, having been produced on the same day by the family of the deceased,
has not been disputed by the respondent as being fabricated or invalid. The
Tribunal has, however, discarded the same solely on the ground that its
recovery was not reflected in the inquest report or jamatalashi.
12. In the opinion of this Court, such an approach is untenable, as there is
no statutory requirement under the Act governing the manner of recovery or
documentation of a journey ticket, and the absence of its mention in the
inquest proceedings cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive to disbelieve
the existence of a valid ticket, particularly when the same stands placed on
record and remains unrebutted.
13. The issue is also no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India vs. Rina Devi“2, wherein it has
been held that the initial burden on the claimant to establish bona fide travel
can be discharged by filing an affidavit along with relevant material,
whereupon, the burden shifts on the Railways to rebut the same. In the
present case, the appellants have discharged this initial burden by producing
the ticket on the same day and placing it on record, and further supporting
the same by duly placing an affidavit. The respondent has failed to disprove
the veracity of the ticket or to establish that the deceased was not travelling
by train. In the absence of any rebuttal, the presumption arising in favour of
the appellants remains intact, and the deceased is liable to be treated as a
bona fide passenger.
14. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the
2
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 225/2022 Page 5 of 6
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:24:53
amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law
and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months
from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed
before the Tribunal at the first instance on 11.05.2026.
15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
16. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2026
kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
FAO 225/2022 Page 6 of 6
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:24:53
[ad_1]
Source link
