Absence of post-mortem or initial ticket recovery cannot defeat compensation claims under beneficial railway legislation.

The Appellants challenged a Railway Claims Tribunal order dated 25.01.2024, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Sh. Rajendra Kumar.

The deceased allegedly fell from the Kaifiyat Express on 24.11.2013 while traveling from Delhi to Akbarpur with a valid ticket.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, citing the non-recovery of the ticket at the initial stage and the absence of an inquest report or post-mortem.

Procedurally, the High Court first condoned a 715-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the Appellants' financial hardship and the beneficial nature of the legislation.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the ticket not being recovered immediately after the incident?

2. Whether the fatal fall constituted an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, in the absence of formal police reports and medical examinations?

The Court applied Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which governs compensation for "untoward incidents" and operates on the principle of strict liability with limited exceptions.

It relied on the precedent Union of India v. Rina Devi, which established that the initial burden on the claimant is discharged by placing relevant facts on record, and mere non-recovery of a ticket is not sufficient to deny bona fide passenger status.

The Court reiterated that the Railways Act is "beneficial legislation" requiring a liberal construction to achieve its objective.

Regarding passenger status, the Court noted that a ticket was eventually produced and a witness (AW-2) testified to its purchase; the Tribunal erred by discarding this evidence simply because the witness was not named in the initial claim.

The Court held that the absence of administrative formalities like a post-mortem or inquest report cannot be used to "non-suit" claimants, as passengers have no control over how authorities conduct investigations.

The Court observed that since the Respondent did not prove any statutory exceptions (e.g., suicide or self-inflicted injury), the evidence from the GRP General Diary and public panchnama was sufficient to link the death to a fall from the train.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with directions to assess and disburse compensation within two months.