Absence of a ticket or body found away from the track does not negate an untoward railway incident.

On 9 August 2023, Nirmal Chandra allegedly travelled from Jaswant Nagar to Etawah by the Shikohabad–Phaphund Passenger Train after purchasing a journey ticket.

During the journey, he allegedly fell from the train between Jaswant Nagar and Sarai Bhopat due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, sustaining fatal injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, principally relying on the absence of a recovered ticket, the body having been found approximately four metres from the track, the nature of the injuries, and an Injured/Dead Register entry stating that the deceased had left home to visit the fields.

The claimants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased qualified as a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket.

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, including whether the location of the body and the nature of the injuries established that he was run over rather than having fallen from a moving train.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from Tribunal decisions.

Under the Railways Act, 1989, the claimant must establish bona fide passenger status and that the death resulted from an “untoward incident”; the Court treated the relevant statutory framework as including the definition of “untoward incident” and the railway’s no-fault compensation liability.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, for the principle that the initial burden on a claimant to establish bona fide passenger status is not unduly onerous and that mere non-recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove such status.

It also relied on Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2351, for the principle that finding a body a few metres away from a railway track is, by itself, insufficient to conclude that the deceased was not travelling by train or that the occurrence was not an untoward incident.

The Court held that the widow’s categorical deposition that the deceased had informed her of his journey to Etawah and had purchased a ticket at Jaswant Nagar discharged the claimants’ initial burden; the respondent produced no cogent material to rebut that evidence.

The absence of a recovered ticket was therefore not decisive.

On the occurrence, the Court found that the body’s location approximately four metres from the track could not conclusively establish that the deceased had been walking on the track and was run over.

There was no eyewitness, nor any testimony from the Loco Pilot, Guard, railway official, the brother whose statement was recorded in the Injured/Dead Register, or the Sub-Inspector who conducted the spot proceedings.

In the absence of direct or reliable evidence supporting the alternative theory of death by being run over while walking on the track, the contemporaneous records and the body’s location were insufficient to rebut the claimants’ case that the deceased had fallen from the moving train.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death arose from an untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 12 February 2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 1 October 2026.

The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.