A claimant must establish bona fide passenger status and accidental fall to claim railway compensation.

Kishore, who worked night duties at SGL Private Limited, Faridabad, was allegedly returning from New Town Faridabad to Faridabad by a local passenger train on 26 May 2022.

The appellants claimed that, owing to heavy rush, he stood near the compartment gate, accidentally fell from the moving train, sustained fatal injuries, and later died.

His body was found outside the fourth railway line, and he was subsequently identified by his photographs and clothes.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on 27 July 2023.

The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The respondent contended that no journey ticket or pass was recovered, the evidence did not establish that Kishore had boarded a passenger train, and railway records showed that no passenger train had operated on the relevant fourth line during the material period.

Whether the appellants established that Kishore was travelling as a bona fide passenger, notwithstanding the non-recovery of a journey ticket or pass.

Whether Kishore’s death resulted from an accidental fall from a passenger train, constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim warranted interference in appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against decisions of the Tribunal.

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning an “untoward incident,” including an accidental fall from a train.

It held that although mere non-recovery of a journey ticket is not, by itself, conclusive against a claimant, the initial burden remains on the claimant to establish through evidence and surrounding circumstances that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger.

The Court considered Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, but held that its principle could not assist the appellants where the foundational fact of passenger status had not first been established.

The Court found that AW-1, Seema, had not personally seen Kishore purchase a ticket, board the train, or fall from it.

No ticket or pass was recovered during the jamatalashi, and there was no independent evidence proving that he had boarded the alleged passenger train.

More significantly, the contemporaneous TSR register showed that no passenger train had operated on the fourth line from 24 May 2022 until 12:22 p.m. on 26 May 2022, whereas the body was found outside that line and the information was received at approximately 11:10 a.m.

The delayed missing-person report and subsequent identification by photographs and clothes established the deceased’s identity but did not establish how he reached the railway track.

Accordingly, the Court held that the appellants failed both to prove bona fide passenger status and to establish that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a passenger train amounting to an untoward incident.

It held that the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger and the occurrence of an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act had not been established.

Finding no merit in the appeal or reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order, the Court dismissed FAO 4/2024.