### Discrepancy in date of journey ticket invalidates status as a bona fide passenger and claim for compensation.

The appellant filed a claim under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989, asserting that on 28.09.2019, while traveling from Taj Nagar to Rewari on Ticket No. UAC-39504166, he fell from an overcrowded train due to a sudden thrust.

He sustained grievous injuries, including a crushed left leg (requiring amputation) and head lacerations.

The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on 16.07.2021, finding the appellant was not a bona fide passenger because the ticket produced was issued a day prior (27.09.2019) and was valid for only three hours.

The appellant appealed, contending the ticket date was a mistake and citing GRP records of the incident.

1. Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger on the date of the alleged incident.

2. Whether the injuries sustained by the appellant resulted from an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The court primarily applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes a "no-fault" liability regime for compensation in "untoward incidents," provided the victim qualifies as a "passenger" under Explanation (ii) as one holding a valid ticket.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent *Rajni v. Union of India* (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2182), which clarifies that compensation is predicated on the victim being a bona fide passenger.

Additionally, Section 123(c) of the Act defines "untoward incident" to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

The court found that the appellant failed to bridge the material discrepancy regarding his status as a bona fide passenger.

Specifically, while the appellant claimed to have purchased the ticket on the date of the accident (28.09.2019), the official verification report confirmed the ticket was issued on 27.09.2019.

Given it was a general class ticket with a limited three-hour validity, it could not have been valid for travel on the subsequent day.

Furthermore, the court noted the absence of evidence for an "untoward incident"; the train guard and ticket-vending official testified they received no reports of a fall or sudden jerks on the relevant date, and the Guard’s Memo Book contained no such entry.

The court reasoned that medical records (MLC/disability certificate) and GRP entries, while proving the existence of injuries, do not independently prove that such injuries were caused by an accidental fall from a train as defined by law.

Consequently, the second issue regarding an "untoward incident" required no further consideration, though the court noted the lack of corroborating evidence for such an event.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the appeal, granting no relief.