Absence of journey ticket and discrepancies in previous travel history cannot justify denial of railway compensation.

The appellant filed a claim for injury compensation after an alleged "untoward incident" on 08.05.2016. He claimed to have boarded an EMU train from Delhi to Badli at 1:30 AM, following two previous connecting journeys. Near Azadpur Station, he suffered an accidental fall due to a sudden jerk, resulting in the amputation of his right arm and right leg

He asserted his journey ticket was lost during the accident

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 30.06.2017, doubting the appellant's version because one of the trains in the sequence (Sealdah Express) did not run on the day of the accident and because the appellant lacked a ticket

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim by focusing on discrepancies in previously completed journeys rather than the subject journey

2. Whether the appellant discharged the initial burden of proving he was a bona fide passenger despite the loss of his ticket

3. Whether the incident constitutes an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989

The Court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define and provide compensation for "untoward incidents"

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that a claimant’s affidavit stating a ticket was purchased shifts the burden of proof to the Railways to rebut bona fide travel with cogent evidence

It further cited Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Jameela v. Union of India, which mandate that compensation provisions in the Act, being beneficial legislation, must be interpreted liberally

The High Court found that the Tribunal misdirected itself by focusing on the appellant's two prior journeys rather than the specific 3rd journey (Delhi to Badli) where the fall occurred

Regarding bona fide status, the Court held that the appellant's testimony, corroborated by contemporaneous GRP and hospital records (DD entry and MLC), discharged his initial burden. The Court noted that the Railways' own UTS ticket verification for that route and time lent further credibility to the appellant's claim

Since the respondent failed to file a DRM report or provide substantive evidence to rebut the appellant’s testimony, the version of the "untoward incident" remained un-rebutted

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the quantum of compensation and ensure disbursement within two weeks of the assessment, with a direction to list the matter before the Tribunal on 28.05.2026