Absence of a ticket for one leg does not defeat a bona fide passenger’s compensation claim.

The appellants, the deceased’s father and mother, sought compensation after their son died from injuries sustained in a fall from a train between Kurla and Chunabhatti on 1 September 2015.

A ticket for travel from Kurla to Belapur was found on his person, but no ticket for the subsequent journey from Belapur to CSMT was recovered.

The Railway Claims Tribunal found that the deceased had died in an untoward incident but dismissed the claim because it was not satisfied that he was a bona fide passenger. The parents appealed.

They relied on the father’s affidavit concerning the deceased’s travel and on the recovered ticket; the Railways disputed the claim and alleged that the deceased’s own negligence caused the accident.

1. Whether the appellants established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the absence of a ticket for the Belapur–CSMT leg of the journey.

2. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from his own negligence or fell within an exception under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation and, if so, what amount was payable.

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation for death or injury caused by an “untoward incident,” subject to its statutory exceptions; Section 123(b) identifies dependants, including the deceased’s parents.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing bona fide passenger status, but that burden may be discharged by an affidavit of relevant facts; the burden then shifts to the Railways, and the absence of a ticket alone does not defeat the claim.

Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003 was relied upon in relation to preparation of a Jamatalashi report.

The Court also applied Rina Devi’s principle that interest may run from the date of the accident and that, when compensation has been revised, the applicable award should be determined by comparing the relevant amounts.

The Tribunal had accepted, on the police report, inquest panchanama and DRM report, that the deceased fell from a train and died in an untoward incident, yet rejected the claim solely because the ticket for the Belapur–CSMT journey was not recovered.

The High Court held that this approach was inconsistent with Rina Devi: the ticket recovered for the Kurla–Belapur journey, together with the father’s affidavit, discharged the appellants’ initial burden, and the Railways did not rebut it with sufficient evidence.

The DRM report did not establish, through eyewitness evidence, that the deceased was standing at the door or that his own negligence caused the fall; nor did the Railways establish that a Section 124A exception applied.

Applying the compensation principles in Rina Devi, the Court compared the revised amount of ₹8,00,000 with the amount calculated on the earlier ₹4,00,000 rate plus interest, and treated the latter as higher.

It awarded ₹8,00,438.36, to be divided equally between the appellants, and directed the Railways to deposit the amount into their bank accounts within eight weeks after receiving their bank details. Any amount not deposited within that period would carry further interest at 9% per annum until payment.