Failure to establish bona fide passenger status and accidental fall defeats compensation claim.

On 16 October 2014, Bharat allegedly travelled with three friends from Kishan Ganj Railway Station to Mangolpuri Railway Station on a Delhi–Jind passenger train after purchasing a valid second-class ticket.

The appellant claimed that, due to overcrowding, Bharat was standing near the door and accidentally fell from the moving train at Mangolpuri Station, sustaining fatal injuries. He was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the compensation claim by judgment dated 30 May 2016 in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/125/2015.

The appellant challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Union of India relied on the DRM report and eyewitness material asserting that Bharat was standing between railway tracks and was struck by another train.

1. Whether the appellant established that Bharat was a bona fide passenger travelling on the relevant passenger train, notwithstanding the non-recovery of a railway ticket.

2. Whether Bharat’s death resulted from an accidental fall from a moving train, constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of the compensation claim warranted interference in appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, includes an accidental fall of a passenger from a train within the definition of an “untoward incident”.

Mere non-recovery of a railway ticket is not, by itself, determinative of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger; however, the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing the foundational facts of the journey, the deceased’s bona fide passenger status, and the occurrence relied upon.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court reiterated that non-recovery of a ticket cannot independently defeat a claim, but that the decision does not dispense with proof of the foundational facts necessary to sustain the claim.

The Court found that the appellant’s evidence did not establish a credible case of accidental fall from the passenger train.

Pummy, examined as AW-2, claimed that he travelled with Bharat and that Bharat had purchased the ticket, but could not state the ticket price or even identify the train.

His testimony materially differed from his earlier statement forming part of the DRM report, in which he stated that the group had got down on the side opposite the platform due to overcrowding.

The account was further contradicted by Sandeep’s contemporaneous eyewitness statement, which recorded that Bharat was standing between the railway tracks and was struck by an express train coming from the Nangloi side.

The Inspector In-charge’s report similarly recorded that Bharat was standing between the tracks and was struck by Train No. 12482.

The DD entry recorded that no ticket or other material was recovered from Bharat, while the driver and guard of the passenger train reported that no untoward incident had occurred or been reported during their duty.

Accordingly, the Court held that the case was not merely one of ticket non-recovery; the evidence affirmatively indicated that Bharat was on the railway line and was struck by another train, thereby failing to establish both bona fide passenger status and an accidental fall from the relevant train.

Consequently, the alleged occurrence was not established as an “untoward incident” giving rise to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

Finding no merit in the appeal or reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed FAO 430/2016.