Absence of ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status where claimant discharges initial burden.

On 24.11.2019, Anil Ugrejiya (the deceased) was travelling from Vapi to Udhwad Railway station.

Due to a heavy rush, he was standing near the door of the compartment, fell from the running train between KM No. 173/18-19, and died on the spot.

The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest to the claimants.

The Railway Administration appealed, contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no ticket was recovered from his person.

They further argued the incident was a result of the deceased's own negligence, excluding it from the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

1. Whether the deceased can be considered a "bona fide passenger" in the absence of a physical ticket being recovered from the site of the accident.

2. Whether the fall from a running train constitutes an "untoward incident" or if it should be excluded as "self-inflicted injury" due to negligence under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

The court primarily applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes "strict liability" for the Railway Administration to pay compensation for an "untoward incident".

The mere absence of a ticket does not negate a claim; the initial burden is discharged by the claimant filing an affidavit of facts, shifting the burden to the Railways (Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018)).

Negligence of the passenger does not constitute "self-inflicted injury" unless there is intent to cause harm, and that a hyper-technical approach regarding ticket possession should be avoided in welfare legislation (Shrikumar Gupta v. Union of India (2025) and Rajni v. Union of India (2025)).

The court reasoned that since the claimant (the father) filed an affidavit asserting that the deceased had a ticket but lost it during the fall, the initial burden of proof was discharged.

The Railways failed to lead evidence to rebut the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Regarding the nature of the accident, the court rejected the plea of negligence, noting that under the principle of strict liability, even if there was some negligence by the passenger, it does not amount to a criminal act or "self-inflicted injury" under the proviso to Section 124-A.

The court observed that "no sane person" would deliberately jump from a running train, and in the absence of a timely and conclusive DRM report proving otherwise, the fall must be treated as an accidental "untoward incident".

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's award, directing the Tribunal to disburse the compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs plus interest to the claimants after due verification.

The ruling reaffirmed that proceedings under the Railways Act are governed by the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than criminal standards of proof.