### Absence of Ticket or Falling While Alighting Does Not Negate Status as a Bona Fide Passenger

The deceased, Vatsalaben Bhagwandas Patil, was traveling with family members in Train No. 8034 Down from Udhna to Ahmedabad on May 21, 2006

Due to a jerk and jolt, she accidentally fell while alighting at Surat Railway Station (Platform No. 1), sustained grievous injuries, and later succumbed during treatment

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on December 14, 2012, primarily relying on a DRM report stating the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found on her person

The Appellants challenged this, pointing to a certified copy of Ticket No. 91444752 produced in the record

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the initial DRM report stating no ticket was found

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

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establish strict liability for the Railway Administration in cases of "untoward incidents," including accidental falls from a train

It relied on the principle from Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), holding that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate a claim; once a claimant files an affidavit of facts, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the deceased was not a bona fide passenger

Following Shrikumar Gupta v. Union of India (2025) and Rajni v. Union of India (2025), the Court emphasized that a hyper-technical approach regarding evidence of tickets should be avoided in welfare legislation

Finally, it applied Union of India v. Radha Yadav (2019) regarding the calculation of compensation post-amendment

The High Court found that the Tribunal committed a patent illegality by failing to notice that the ticket was already part of the record at page 80 of the paper book

The Court reasoned that the presence of the ticket, combined with evidence from the Panchnama (Ex. A/1) and Inquest Panchnama (Ex. A/2) showing the deceased fell due to a jerk while the train was moving, squarely placed the event within the definition of an "untoward incident"

Rejecting the Railway's plea of negligence, the Court noted that no sane person voluntarily jumps from a moving train and, per established precedents, the lack of a formal seizure memo by the police cannot defeat a claim when foundational facts are established by credible material

The Court concluded that the claimants discharged their initial burden, which the Railway failed to rebut

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and her death resulted from an untoward incident

Following the Radha Yadav dictum, the Court awarded a fixed compensation of ₹8,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased

The Respondent was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks, and the heirs were permitted to apply for disbursement