A ticket purchased after the train’s departure fails to establish bona fide passenger status.

The appellant’s husband, Shambhu Manjhi, was alleged to have been travelling from Patna Junction to New Delhi on Train No. 4055 (Brahmaputra Mail) on 17 April 2011 with a second-class superfast ticket.

The appellant claimed that, owing to overcrowding and a sudden jerk near Sachiwalaya Halt, he fell from the running train and later died at PMCH, Patna.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the compensation claim, leading to the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The respondents contended that the ticket relied upon had been purchased at 17:47 hours, whereas the train had departed Patna Junction at 13:18 hours, and also relied on inconsistencies concerning the date of the deceased’s death and the absence of PMCH medical records.

The Court applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which compensation for an “untoward incident” is dependent upon the victim being a bona fide passenger.

It held that the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing the foundational facts of the journey, although mere non-recovery of a railway ticket is not, by itself, conclusive against bona fide passenger status.

The Court referred to Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, concerning the principles applicable to claims involving railway accidents and passenger status.

It also relied on Mohammad Azam v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6413, which distinguished between mere non-recovery of a ticket and cases where the ticket relied upon was demonstrably issued after the relevant occurrence.

The appeal was governed procedurally by Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Court found that the appellant failed to establish the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger of Train No. 4055.

The ticket relied upon recorded its purchase at 17:47 hours on 17 April 2011, more than four hours after the train had departed Patna Junction at 13:18 hours, thereby undermining the assertion that the deceased had boarded that train using the ticket.

The Court further noted the discrepancy between the appellant’s assertion that the deceased died at PMCH on 17 April 2011 and the police statement recording his death on 18 April 2011, along with the failure to produce PMCH admission or death records.

Since the foundational requirement of bona fide passenger status was not proved, the Court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether the alleged fall otherwise constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 124-A.

Consequently, the claim for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 could not be sustained.

The Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.