Claimant’s affidavit discharges initial burden of proving bonafide passenger status despite the absence of a ticket.

The Appellants, being the widow and daughters of the deceased Mohan Sonawane, challenged the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dated March 5, 2021, which dismissed their claim for compensation.

The Appellants alleged that the deceased, while traveling from Mumbai Central to Borivali on a valid Railway Privilege Free Pass, accidentally fell from a running train and died due to head injuries.

The Respondent-Railways contested the claim, relying on a DRM Report suggesting the deceased was knocked down by a shunting train while trespassing near Platform No. 5, and noted that no traveling authority was recovered from the body.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, leading to the present appeal.

1. Whether interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the time of the incident?

3. Whether the death of the deceased occurred as a result of an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act?

4. Whether any compensation is payable to the appellants as dependents of the deceased?

The Court primarily applied Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an "untoward incident" as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

It further relied on Section 124-A, which establishes "strict liability" or "no-fault liability" for railway accidents.

The Court followed the precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), which held that the initial burden of proving bonafide passenger status is discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, shifting the burden to the Railways.

Additionally, it applied Jameela v. Union of India (2010) to establish that negligence (such as standing at an open door) does not constitute a "criminal act" under Section 124-A.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) regarding the purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation.

The Court observed that Appellant No. 1 and a railway-employed friend (PW-2) provided oral evidence affirming the deceased’s status as a passenger and the occurrence of the fall.

Per the Rina Devi doctrine, this discharged the initial burden of proof, which the Railways failed to rebut since their sole witness had no personal knowledge of the incident.

The Court rejected the Railways' trespassing argument, noting that the absence of a ticket on the body does not automatically negate bonafide status.

It emphasized that under Section 124-A, the fault of the passenger is irrelevant unless it constitutes a "criminal act" with mens rea, which was not proven here.

Applying a "preponderance of probabilities" rather than the strict criminal standard, the Court found the incident fell squarely within the definition of an "untoward incident".

Regarding quantum, the Court applied the Rina Devi rule to award the higher of two amounts: the original compensation (Rs. 4,00,000) plus 9% interest from the date of the accident (totaling Rs. 9,94,000), vs. the 2017 amended amount (Rs. 8,00,000).

The Court ordered the Respondent-Railways to pay Rs. 9,94,000, to be distributed equally among the three Appellants.