A missing ticket does not defeat bona fide passenger status established by affidavit.

The claimants alleged that the deceased, Dipak Pithadiya, was travelling from Kandivali to Borivali on 5 November 2008 with a valid ticket when he fell from the crowded train after a jerk and was fatally injured.

The Railway disputed that he was a bona fide passenger and contended that he was a trespasser struck while crossing the tracks.

The Railway Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹4,00,000 with interest. The Union of India appealed.

The High Court considered the claimant’s affidavit, the Motorman’s evidence and incident report, and the delayed DRM report.

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether he was a bona fide passenger despite the missing ticket.

Whether the delayed DRM report undermined the Railway’s defence.

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the enhanced schedule introduced in 2017, or to the earlier compensation with interest, whichever was higher.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 covers accidental falling from a train as an “untoward incident.”

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status: the claimant’s initial burden may be discharged by an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railway; compensation is calculated by comparing the amount applicable on the accident date with reasonable interest against the amount prescribed on the Tribunal’s award date, and the higher amount is payable.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India, which applied the Rina Devi approach to a claim supported by an affidavit and an explanation that the ticket was lost.

It considered Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway in assessing the significance of an inquiry or report not made promptly after the incident.

The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 prescribe ₹8,00,000 for death from 1 January 2017.

The claimant’s affidavit stated that the deceased had travelled with a ticket, which was lost along with his belongings in the incident. The Railway produced no cogent evidence to displace that account; accordingly, the missing ticket did not defeat bona fide passenger status under Rina Devi and Lata.

The Motorman’s contemporaneous report described a “male passenger” being knocked down, whereas his later testimony that the deceased was a trespasser crossing the track was inconsistent; the Court therefore accepted the Tribunal’s rejection of that testimony.

The DRM report was prepared nearly five years after the incident, contrary to the prescribed 60-day period, and the Court held that it had lost relevance in light of Kalandi Charan Sahoo.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court held that the claimants were entitled to whichever was higher: ₹4,00,000 with applicable interest or ₹8,00,000 under the amended schedule.

The claimants were entitled to the higher of ₹4,00,000 with interest or ₹8,00,000 under the amended compensation schedule.

The appeal was dismissed and the Rule discharged.