Mere absence of a railway ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status; the burden shifts to Railways.

Md. Nisar Alam, aged 21, was travelling on 2 October 2021 by Train No. 09027, Jammu Tawi Vivek Special, from Bandra Terminus towards Ahmedabad.

While the train was passing Maninagar Railway Station, he fell from the train and sustained serious injuries; he died during medical treatment on 4 October 2021.

His parents filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, asserting that he was a bona fide passenger and that his ticket had been lost or damaged in the incident.

The Railways denied liability, contending that the train was a reserved special train, that the deceased’s name was absent from the reservation chart, and that he had attempted to de-board a moving train, which did not constitute an “untoward incident”.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹8 lakhs with 9% interest.

The Union of India challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid railway ticket, despite the non-recovery of a ticket and the Railways’ contention that the train permitted only reserved passengers.

2. Whether the deceased’s fall from the train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, or was excluded because he allegedly attempted to de-board a moving train.

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to statutory compensation under the Railways Act.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act governing appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 concerning “untoward incidents” and the Railways’ no-fault compensation liability.

Relying on Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar v. Union of India, (2008) 9 SCC 527, it held that the beneficial provisions of the Railways Act must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation, including in cases involving a passenger falling while boarding or alighting from a train.

Relying on Dolly Rani Saha v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 656, the Court held that mere absence of a ticket from the injured or deceased person does not negate bona fide passenger status; after the claimant discharges the initial burden, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove it.

The Court also relied on Shrikumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115, for the principle that a plea that the deceased jumped or de-boarded a running train must be proved by the Railways and cannot rest on mere assertion.

The Court found that the claimants had consistently asserted that the deceased was travelling from Mumbai to Ahmedabad and had filed an affidavit supporting that claim. This shifted the evidentiary burden to the Railways.

The Railways failed to produce the train composition, relevant excess-fare-ticket records, or other best evidence to establish that the deceased was travelling without authority; the reservation chart and ticket-sale summary were insufficient.

The surrounding records—including the panchnamas, medical documents, Form 01, Form 02, and joint observation report—supported the fact that the deceased fell from Train No. 09027 and sustained the fatal injuries.

The Court further held that the Railways did not prove its assertion that the deceased intentionally attempted to de-board a moving train.

Applying the beneficial and liberal interpretation mandated by the Supreme Court, the fall was treated as an accidental fall amounting to an untoward incident.

It held that the deceased was to be treated as a bona fide passenger and that his fall from the train constituted an untoward incident attracting the Railways’ statutory liability.

Any interim relief stood discontinued; the connected civil application was disposed of, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the compensation with interest after due verification and identification.