Absence of formal seizure memo cannot negate bona fide passenger status if credible evidence substantiates travel.

The deceased, Ramanbhai Rohit, died on September 26, 2004, after accidentally falling between platform Nos. 1 and 2 at Bharuch Railway Station while traveling from Surat.

The appellants (widow and minor daughter) filed a claim for Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

The Railway Administration contested the claim, alleging the incident was not a "bona fide untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) and resulted from the deceased's own negligence.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

Evidence in the police panchnama, however, recorded a railway ticket from Surat to Bharuch and Rs. 25/- found in the deceased’s pocket.

1. Whether the deceased was traveling as a bona fide passenger by the train on September 26, 2004.

2. Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in its hyper-technical approach regarding the burden of proof for a valid ticket.

The Court applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes the principle of strict liability for the railway administration regardless of fault.

The Court relied on Rajni v. Union of India [2025 Live Law (SC) 986], which held that once a claimant states on oath they had a ticket, the burden shifts to the Railway to disprove it, and that a "hyper-technical approach" regarding seizure memos should be avoided.

The Court further cited Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [2008 9 SCC 527], reaffirming that Section 124-A is a social welfare provision based on the doctrine of strict liability, exempt from the standard exceptions of negligence found in common law.

The High Court found that the Tribunal committed a "manifest error" by ignoring the Bharuch Railway Police panchnama, which explicitly recorded the recovery of a ticket from the deceased's person.

The Court reasoned that the proceedings are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

By relying on Rajni (supra), the Court determined that the claimants' foundational facts—possession of a ticket and an accidental fall—were established, thus activating the statutory presumption of being a bona fide passenger.

The Court criticized the Tribunal for adopting an adversarial, hyper-technical stance that frustrated the beneficial object of the Railways Act, noting that the Railways, as a state instrumentality, cannot defeat claims through procedural imperfections in investigation.

The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with 9% interest from the date of the incident (26.09.2004) until realization, or Rs. 8 lakhs (as per updated schedules), whichever is higher. The Railway Administration was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks for disbursement to the claimants.