A journey ticket issued after the incident fails to establish bona fide passenger status.

On 18 January 2022, the appellant alleged that he was travelling by local train from Azadpur Railway Station to Sadar Bazar Railway Station on a valid journey ticket. At Sabzi Mandi Railway Station, he alighted to use the restroom and, while attempting to reboard the train after a sudden jerk, fell from it, resulting in the amputation of both legs.

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the injuries were consistent with an “untoward incident” but dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger.

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

He relied on a railway ticket bearing No. UTS11W3D54020, but the DRM report recorded that the ticket was issued at 9:02 a.m. on 18 January 2022, whereas the incident occurred at approximately 8:07 a.m.

The appellant also relied on the testimony of his brother, Sohil, who had reached the spot after the incident.

Whether the appellant established that he was a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket from him?

Whether the ticket relied upon by the appellant, having been issued approximately 55 minutes after the accident, could establish his bona fide passenger status?

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the compensation 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 orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, which establishes that mere non-recovery of a ticket from an injured or deceased passenger is not, by itself, determinative of bona fide passenger status; however, the initial burden lies on the claimant to establish such status, which must be assessed in light of the attending circumstances.

The Court also proceeded on the Tribunal’s finding that the injuries resulted from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, a finding that was not challenged in the appeal.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court held that although non-recovery of a ticket alone could not defeat the claim, the appellant still had to discharge the initial burden of proving that he had travelled as a bona fide passenger.

The appellant asserted that he had purchased a ₹30 ticket before commencing the journey, but the ticket relied upon was demonstrably issued at 9:02 a.m., nearly 55 minutes after the incident recorded at 8:07 a.m.

It therefore could not have been the ticket used for the journey in question.

The testimony of the appellant’s brother did not cure this defect because he arrived only after the accident and had not witnessed any search of the appellant or recovery of the ticket.

The Court consequently found that the appellant had failed to establish the foundational requirement of bona fide passenger status, notwithstanding the occurrence of an untoward incident.

Since the ticket relied upon was issued after the accident and the remaining evidence was insufficient, the compensation claim could not be sustained.

The application seeking condonation of 110 days’ delay was allowed.

On merits, the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal’s order dated 7 May 2024 was not disturbed.