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

On 12 January 2018, Arifkhan Pathan was travelling from Vadodara to Dahod by passenger train when, allegedly due to a heavy jerk and overcrowding, he fell from the running train near Godhra Railway Station and suffered injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg below the knee.

He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹4,00,000.

The Railway Administration denied liability, contending that he was not a bona fide passenger because no valid journey ticket was produced and that the injuries were self-inflicted.

The Railway Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹3,20,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from 16 May 2019 until realization.

The Union of India challenged that award before the High Court.

Whether the claimant established that he was a bona fide passenger despite the non-production or non-recovery of the railway ticket.

Whether the claimant’s fall from the running train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, or whether the injuries were self-inflicted.

Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award of ₹3,20,000 with interest was liable to be set aside.

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning an “untoward incident” involving a fall from a passenger train.

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, which holds that mere absence of a ticket does not by itself negate bona fide passenger status; the claimant may initially discharge the burden by filing an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to establish otherwise on the facts and surrounding circumstances.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 INSC 715, reaffirming that non-recovery of a railway ticket does not, by itself, defeat a compensation claim where the journey and untoward incident are otherwise established.

The Court further treated the Railway Administration’s DRM Report as relevant evidence regarding the occurrence and cause of the incident.

The claimant consistently pleaded and deposed that he had purchased a general-class ticket for travel from Vadodara to Dahod, but that the ticket was lost in the incident.

He maintained this position during cross-examination by both the Railway’s counsel and the Tribunal.

Applying Rina Devi and Lata, the Court held that the absence of the ticket was not conclusive against him, particularly because the Railway Administration neither examined a witness nor produced documentary evidence demonstrating that he was travelling without a ticket.

On the nature of the incident, the DRM Report itself recorded that the claimant was injured after falling from the running train due to overcrowding.

Since this document supported the claimant’s case, the Railway could not successfully contend that the injuries were self-inflicted.

The fall therefore qualified as an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Tribunal’s award of ₹3,20,000 with interest at 9% per annum from 16 May 2019 until realization was affirmed.

The Railway Claims Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount with interest to the claimant after deducting any deficit court fee and completing due verification.