Absence of a journey ticket alone does not negate bona fide passenger status.

Aman Kumar was travelling in Train No. 04446 from New Delhi to Faridabad on 15.08.2023. After the train left Tilak Bridge Railway Station, he allegedly lost his balance while standing near the gate and fell from the moving train. He was taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College, where he was declared brought dead.

His legal representatives filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal held that the death resulted from an “untoward incident” but rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, principally because no journey ticket was recovered from him.

A platform ticket issued at New Delhi Railway Station at 18:59 hours on 15.08.2023 was, however, recovered from the deceased during jamatalashi and verified by the Railways. The appellants challenged the Tribunal’s decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket from his person.

Whether the recovery of a valid and verified platform ticket, together with the mother’s affidavit stating that a journey ticket had been purchased but was lost in the accident, was sufficient to discharge the claimants’ initial burden.

Whether the appellants were entitled to pursue compensation when the Tribunal had already found that the death resulted from an “untoward incident”.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation for death or injury caused by an “untoward incident,” and its Explanation includes within “passenger” a person who has purchased a valid journey ticket or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, mere absence of a ticket from an injured or deceased person does not, by itself, disprove bona fide passenger status; the claimant may discharge the initial burden through an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways, and the matter is assessed on the attending circumstances and the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

This principle was reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 715.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had incorrectly treated the absence of a journey ticket as conclusive against the appellants. The platform ticket recovered from the deceased was issued at 18:59 hours, was valid for two hours, and therefore remained valid at the recorded incident time of 19:38 hours.

Although a platform ticket ordinarily authorises entry onto the platform rather than travel by train, Section 124-A’s Explanation expressly recognises a platform-ticket holder who becomes a victim of an untoward incident as a “passenger” for the purposes of compensation.

The mother’s sworn affidavit that the deceased had purchased a journey ticket, which was lost in the accident, provided additional evidence beyond a bare assertion. In view of the fall from a moving train and the recovery of the platform ticket, that explanation was found consistent with the surrounding circumstances. The appellants therefore discharged their initial burden under Rina Devi, while the Railways failed to rebut their case.

Since the Tribunal’s finding that the death resulted from an untoward incident was not challenged and was supported by the General Diary entry and Station Master’s memo, no re-examination of that issue was necessary.

The High Court consequently set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law. The Tribunal was directed to order disbursement within two months of receiving the judgment, and the matter was directed to be listed before it on 30.09.2026.