Absence of ticket or witness’s name in claim application cannot negate bona fide passenger status.

The Appellant’s son, Vimlesh @ Ramvali, allegedly purchased a second-class ticket on 21.08.2016 to travel from Shamsabad to Delhi via Farrukhabad Express

It was alleged that the deceased fell from the train near Shamsabad Railway Station and died from his injuries

The Appellant filed a claim supported by the testimonies of AW-1 (father) and AW-2 (brother/eyewitness to the ticket purchase)

The Respondent contested the claim based on the non-recovery of a ticket and a DRM inquiry report which attributed the death to negligence

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application on 12.04.2022, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death did not constitute an "untoward incident"

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in discarding the testimony of an eyewitness regarding the purchase of a ticket solely because his name was absent from the initial claim application

2. Whether the non-recovery of a journey ticket and the findings of a delayed DRM inquiry report are sufficient to rebut the status of a bona fide passenger and the occurrence of an untoward incident

Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" and establish the principle of strict liability for compensation

Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572: once a claimant discharges the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status (even through an affidavit), the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the contrary

Principle from Vikrant v. Union of India, asserting that a delayed DRM report lacks contemporaneous evidentiary value

The Court found the Tribunal’s rejection of AW-2’s testimony "wholly untenable," noting that the brother of the deceased gave unshaken direct evidence regarding the ticket purchase and boarding

Under the Rina Devi doctrine, this testimony shifted the onus to the Respondent, which they failed to discharge

The Court criticized the Tribunal’s reliance on the DRM report, noting it was prepared more than a year after the incident and after the legal proceedings had commenced, thus lacking reliability

The Court rejected the "self-negligence" argument, stating that the severance of the deceased's head does not inherently disprove an accidental fall, and noting that the concept of contributory negligence is diluted in strict liability claims under Section 124-A

The Court remanded the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal is directed to ensure disbursement within two months of the order, with the first hearing scheduled for 06.07.2026