Injuries alone cannot prove that a passenger was run over while crossing railway tracks.

The appellant sought compensation for the death of her mother, Renu Devi, who was alleged to have fallen from a crowded train near Kanchosi Railway Station on 12 June 2013.

A valid journey ticket was recovered from the deceased.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the ticket did not establish either that she had travelled by the train or that she had fallen from it, and concluding that she had been run over while crossing the track.

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

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s rejection of the significance of the ticket recovered from her person.

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

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident”; Section 124-A imposes strict liability for compensation, subject to the statutory framework.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant’s initial burden regarding bona fide passenger status may be discharged by establishing relevant facts and circumstances, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent evidence; mere absence or non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive.

The judgment also cites Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India as reiterating that principle, and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. for the strict-liability character of Section 124-A and the proposition that the claimant need not prove the incident as in a criminal trial.

The ticket was recovered from the deceased and recorded in the inquest proceedings; the Railways did not establish that it did not belong to her or that she was not travelling as a passenger.

The Tribunal therefore erred in treating the ticket as irrelevant to bona fide passenger status merely because the manner of the accident was disputed.

As to the incident, there was no eyewitness, loco-pilot statement, or other evidence showing that the deceased had entered the track or identifying a train that ran her over.

The nature of her injuries and the police papers, without more, could not establish that she was crossing the track.

Considering the recovered ticket and the absence of cogent evidence supporting the run-over theory, the Court accepted the appellant’s case on a preponderance of probabilities.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter for assessment of compensation, directing that the amount payable be disbursed within two months of receipt of the order.

The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.