Absence of contemporaneous station records cannot override established evidence of a bona fide passenger's accidental fall.

On 12.10.2024, Ravindra Kumar (the deceased) was traveling with his son and brother-in-law (AW-2) from Gokulpur Saboli to Shamli. Due to heavy crowding, the deceased fell from the moving train near Gotra Halt, sustaining injuries that led to his death at GTB Hospital.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 05.01.2026, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because of a handwritten destination ("Shamli") on the ticket and that the event was not an "untoward incident" due to a lack of contemporaneous railway records like a Station Diary entry.

The appellants challenged this, relying on eyewitness testimony and the fact that the accident occurred on the admitted route of the issued ticket.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1889.

2. Whether the death occurred due to an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act.

The court applied Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which govern compensation for "untoward incidents" (including accidental falls).

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that the initial burden on the claimant is discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, shifting the burden to the Railways to disprove the claim.

The court further cited Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Rajni v. Union of India, emphasizing that the Act is beneficial legislation requiring a liberal construction.

The High Court found the Tribunal’s rejection based on the handwritten ticket insertion unsustainable. It noted that the booking clerk (CW-1) admitted the ticket was validly issued for a route (Gokulpur Saboli to Gujran Balwa) that encompassed the site of the accident (Gotra Halt); thus, the deceased held a valid ticket for that corridor regardless of the handwritten destination.

Regarding the "untoward incident," the court held that the absence of a Station Diary entry cannot override consistent evidence, such as the eyewitness testimony of AW-2, the post-mortem report attributing death to a railway accident, and the DRM inquiry report.

The court reasoned that since the respondent failed to prove any statutory exceptions (e.g., suicide, intoxication, or criminal act), the accidental fall squarely met the definition of an untoward incident.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to calculate and disburse compensation within two months. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.05.2026.