Absence of ticket and alleged run-over cannot defeat compensation claim if ocular evidence establishes accidental fall.

On 28.04.2011, Amar Singh (the deceased) was allegedly traveling from Balrai to Etawah on an EMU train.

Due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, he fell from the running train near Jaswant Nagar Railway Station and died.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 25.02.2022, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found and that the incident was a "run-over" case rather than an "untoward incident".

The appellants challenged this order before the High Court with a 595-day delay, citing economic hardship.

Whether the delay of 595 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket.

Whether the station of the body and nature of injuries constituted an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 regarding appeals.

It applied Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines "untoward incidents" and mandates strict liability for compensation.

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide status if the initial burden is discharged via affidavit.

It relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, which qualifies the legislation as beneficial and subject to liberal construction.

Regarding delay, it followed Mohsina v. Union of India to condone delays for economically weak litigants.

The Court first condoned the delay, noting the appellants' low socio-economic status and the beneficial nature of the law.

On merits, it found the Tribunal’s "run-over" theory speculative.

The Court noted that the eyewitness testimony of AW-2 (Atar Singh), who saw the deceased fall due to a jerk, remained uncontroverted during cross-examination.

It held that the Tribunal erred in relying on a vague panchnama ("train se kat kar") over consistent ocular evidence.

The Court observed that the post-mortem report (rib fractures/crushed extremities) was consistent with a fall.

It further held that the absence of a ticket was mitigated by the testimonies of the son and co-passenger, thereby shifting the burden to the Railways, which failed to provide rebuttal evidence like the Train Signal Register (TSR) to disprove the timeline or occurrence.

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death resulted from an "untoward incident".

The delay of 595 days was condoned.

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for the sole purpose of assessing and disbursing compensation within four weeks.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.03.2026.