Absence of Ticket Does Not Negate Bona Fide Passenger Status If Initial Burden Is Discharged via Affidavit

The appellant claimed that on August 10, 2008, while traveling with a valid second-class ticket from Vapi to Baroda on the Mumbai Central–Ahmedabad Passenger train, he accidentally fell from the train at KM No. 172/2

The fall resulted in severe injuries, specifically the amputation of his right thigh above the knee

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) dismissed the claim on August 8, 2012, primarily on the ground that no railway ticket was recovered from the claimant or produced during the proceedings

The appellant maintained the ticket was lost during the accident

The railway administration did not provide any oral or documentary evidence, nor did they cross-examine the appellant

1. Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was correct in rejecting the claim solely because a railway ticket was not recovered or produced by the applicant

2. Whether the incident constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which provides for compensation on account of untoward incidents regardless of fault

Raji and Another v. Union of India and Another (2025 Live Law (SC) 986) and Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which established that the initial burden of proof on a claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts

The mere absence of a ticket does not negate a claim of being a bona fide passenger and that proceedings under the Act are governed by the principle of "preponderance of probability" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt"

The High Court observed that the RCT adopted a hyper-technical approach that frustrated the welfare object of the Railways Act

The claimant filed an affidavit asserting he purchased a ticket but lost it during the incident; since the railway administration failed to cross-examine him or produce rebuttal evidence (such as a DRM report), his testimony remained unshaken

Following the Rina Devi and Raji mandates, the court found that the evidentiary burden had shifted to the Railways to prove the claimant was not a bona fide passenger, a burden they failed to discharge

The court underscored that procedural imperfections or the absence of a seizure memo should not defeat legitimate claims in social-justice legislation

The court reversed the findings on issues 1 and 2 to the affirmative and remanded the case to the RCT, Ahmedabad Bench, for the limited purpose of assessing the specific quantum of compensation regarding the injury (Issue No. 3), directing completion within three months. The appellant was also granted liberty to amend the cause-title to match his Aadhar Card name, Panchanan Bhunia