Absence of journey ticket cannot negate bona fide passenger status if initial burden is discharged through affidavit.

On 27.04.2018, Sanjeev Kumar (the deceased) was allegedly traveling from Phaphund to Ghaziabad on a valid journey ticket.

According to the appellants, due to a heavy rush, he accidentally fell from a running train near Ekdil Railway Station and died from fatal injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, ruling that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger (as no ticket was recovered during jamatalashi) and that the death did not constitute an "untoward incident" based on the loco pilot’s statement and a DRM report.

The appellants challenged this, relying on the testimony of AW-2, who witnessed the ticket purchase and boarding, and the post-mortem report consistent with a fall from a train.

1. Whether the incident in question constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes strict liability for the Railways in cases of "untoward incidents," defined under Section 123(c).

Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which held that the initial burden of proof regarding bona fide passenger status is discharged by the claimant filing an affidavit, shifting the onus to the Railways, and that non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive proof of unauthorized travel.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, reinforcing that the Act is beneficial legislation to be construed liberally.

The High Court found that the Tribunal erred by over-relying on the DRM report and the loco pilot's statement.

The court noted that the Station Master memo and the location of the body (near the tracks, not on them) refuted any "run-over" theory and supported an accidental fall.

Regarding bona fide status, the court held that the testimony of AW-2 (the deceased's uncle) sufficiently discharged the initial burden of proving the purchase of a ticket.

Under the Rina Devi principle, the burden then shifted to the Respondent, who failed to provide any evidence—beyond a departmental report—to prove the deceased was a trespasser or that the death fell under statutory exceptions.

The court emphasized that the absence of a report by the loco pilot does not negate the occurrence of an accidental fall.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within two months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.05.2026.