A valid MST supports bona fide passenger status; absence of eyewitness evidence is not fatal to compensation claims.

Partap Singh, aged approximately 49 years, was employed as a Peon in the Sales Tax Department at Panipat and allegedly travelled daily by train between Rajlu Garhi and Panipat.

On 15 February 2016, he died after coming into contact with a moving train near Rajlu Garhi Railway Station.

An MST bearing No. 11567422 was recovered from his person during jamatalashi.

His widow and children filed a claim under the Railways Act, 1989, asserting that he had fallen from a running train due to a heavy jerk.

The Railways contended that he was not travelling as a passenger but had been hit or run over while crossing the railway track, and also relied on his alleged mental disorder.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death resulted from an “untoward incident.”

Whether the appellants established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that Partap Singh was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident, notwithstanding the absence of an eyewitness or direct evidence identifying the train boarded by him?

Whether the deceased’s death constituted an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, or whether the Railways established that he was a trespasser or that any statutory exception to no-fault liability applied?

Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 with interest?

The Court applied Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which death or injury resulting from an “untoward incident” attracts statutory no-fault liability, subject to the exceptions expressly recognised by the Act.

The claimant’s initial burden may be discharged through credible circumstantial material, including sworn testimony and evidence of bona fide travel; thereafter, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Railways.

Proceedings under Section 124-A are beneficial in nature and are governed by the preponderance-of-probabilities standard rather than the criminal standard of proof.

These principles were reiterated in Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another, 2025 INSC 1201, which cautioned against a hyper-technical approach.

On compensation, the Court relied on Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410, holding that the claimant is entitled to the higher amount resulting from the statutory compensation applicable on the date of the award or the compensation payable with reasonable interest from the date of the accident.

The recovery of the valid MST from the deceased, together with evidence that he was employed at Panipat and regularly travelled by train from Rajlu Garhi, constituted credible foundational material supporting bona fide passenger status.

The Court held that the widow’s lack of eyewitness knowledge did not undermine her testimony regarding his regular travel pattern.

The Tribunal had impermissibly required proof of the precise train boarded and the exact manner in which the deceased fell, although such direct evidence was inherently unlikely where the victim had died.

The Railways’ reliance on the DRM report and enquiry statements established, at most, a possibility that the deceased had been crossing the track; it did not cogently prove trespass or any statutory exception under Section 124-A.

Similarly, the deceased’s alleged psychiatric treatment did not establish that he had deliberately entered the railway track or that the incident fell within an exception to no-fault liability.

The appellants therefore discharged the initial burden, while the Railways failed to rebut their case by convincing evidence.

It held that the appellants had established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death was attributable to an untoward incident within the meaning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The appellants were awarded ₹8,00,000, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application until realisation.

The Railways was directed to pay the amount within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.