Failure to Maintain Railway or Police Records Cannot Disprove an Otherwise Consistent Claim of Untoward Incident

The appellant claimed that on September 20, 2017, he fell from the Bihar Sampark Kranti Express near Lucknow Railway Station due to a sudden push by a crowd while standing near the door.

He sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of his left leg and multiple toes on his right foot.

Nearly one year later, he filed a claim for compensation, which the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed on March 26, 2021.

The Tribunal's dismissal was based on the lack of official railway or police records of the incident, the absence of eyewitnesses, and a delay in reporting.

The appellant then challenged this dismissal before the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

2. Whether the injuries sustained by the appellant were the result of an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act.

Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define and provide for compensation regarding "untoward incidents" involving railway passengers.

The precedent set in Union of India v. Rina Devi establishes that the initial burden of proof is discharged once a passenger produces a valid ticket and testifies to the occurrence.

The Railways Act is "beneficial legislation," meaning claims should be judged on the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than the strict proof required in criminal trials.

The Court found that the appellant successfully discharged the initial burden of proving he was a bona fide passenger by producing his original journey ticket and testifying under oath.

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s reliance on the absence of official railway records, noting that the Divisional Railway Manager’s report did not affirmatively disprove the incident but merely noted a lack of entries.

The Court emphasized the medical evidence from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, which recorded a "fall from train" just two days after the incident and detailed catastrophic injuries consistent with such an event.

The Court held that the delay in filing the claim was adequately explained by the appellant’s long-term hospitalization and repeated surgeries.

Under the "preponderance of probabilities," the Court concluded the appellant’s consistent testimony and medical records outweighed the procedural gaps cited by the respondent.

The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess and award compensation within two months. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on August 17, 2026.