Hearsay Testimony Fails to Discharge Initial Burden of Proving Bona Fide Passenger Status Absent Ticket Recovery

The appellant’s son, Yash Maheshwari (the deceased), allegedly fell from a train near Mehrawal Railway Station on the night of October 11/12, 2024, while traveling from Ghaziabad to Aligarh

The appellant claimed the deceased possessed a valid mail/express ticket, though no ticket was recovered from the site or the body

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on September 4, 2025, ruling that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was a "run-over" rather than an "untoward incident"

The appellant challenged this before the High Court, asserting the father's affidavit (AW-1) was sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the ticket

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question

Whether the alleged accident constituted an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989

The court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the definition of "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which establishes that the initial burden of proof lies on the claimant to demonstrate material facts regarding bona fide passenger status; a mere affidavit by a person not present at the time of ticket purchase may be insufficient

It also considered Rajni v. Union of India regarding the beneficial nature of the legislation

Mohsina v. Union of India for the condonation of delay based on economic hardship

Regarding the first issue, the Court observed that no journey ticket was recovered.

The testimony of the appellant (AW-1) stated the deceased bought a ticket, but since AW-1 did not accompany the deceased, the Court deemed the evidence "hearsay" and insufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof required under Rina Devi.

Consequently, the deceased could not be classified as a bona fide passenger.

Regarding the second issue, the Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s finding that the incident was a "run-over."

It noted there was no evidence from a loco-pilot to support a run-over theory; the Station Master's memo was based solely on the discovery of the body by a keyman.

However, the Court noted that because the bona fide status was not proved, the second issue became secondary to the final outcome.

On merits, the Court held that while the Tribunal’s finding on the nature of the accident (run-over) was "legally unsustainable," the dismissal of the claim was correct because the appellant failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

The appeal was dismissed.