A railway ticket alone does not establish bona fide passenger status for compensation claims.

The appellants challenged, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 30.05.2018 dismissing Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/452/2011.

Their case was that Sarju, the deceased, purchased a valid railway ticket and travelled from New Town Faridabad to New Delhi by an EMU train on 11.08.2011.

Near New Town Faridabad Railway Station, he allegedly fell from the moving train because of a heavy jerk, suffered fatal injuries, and subsequently died.

The railway records, however, showed that Train No. 12192, the Jabalpur–New Delhi Express, passed through the station at 10:22 a.m., while the next EMU, Train No. 64057, passed at 11:29 a.m.; the death had already been reported by the Station Master at approximately 10:35 a.m.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had failed to establish either an “untoward incident” or the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.

1. Whether the appellants established that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger in an EMU train at the relevant time.

2. Whether the deceased’s alleged fall from the moving train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the production or recovery of railway tickets, by itself, established that the deceased was travelling in the particular train from which he allegedly fell.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents,” including accidental falls from trains.

It held, relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, that mere non-recovery of a ticket from an injured or deceased person is not by itself determinative of bona fide passenger status; nevertheless, the initial burden rests on the claimant to establish that status through the attending circumstances.

A railway ticket, by itself, does not prove that the deceased was travelling in the particular train from which he allegedly fell; a credible factual foundation for such travel must first be established.

Although the appellants relied on the alleged recovery of valid tickets, the contemporaneous railway records contradicted their account.

The ticket was allegedly purchased at about 10:20 a.m.; Train No. 12192 passed New Town Faridabad at 10:22 a.m. without stopping, the next EMU passed only at 11:29 a.m., and the Station Master had reported the death by 10:35 a.m.

Thus, the timing of the alleged fall from an EMU did not correspond with the railway record.

Since no EMU was shown to have passed during the relevant period and the only train then passing did not stop at the station, the appellants failed to establish that the deceased had been travelling in the alleged EMU.

This was a fundamental evidentiary deficiency, not a minor discrepancy, and consequently neither bona fide passenger status nor an untoward incident under Section 123(c) was proved.

Accordingly, the principle in Rina Devi did not assist them, and the claim for compensation could not be sustained.

Finding no merit in the appeal or reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment dated 30.05.2018, the High Court dismissed FAO 55/2019.