Mere non-recovery of a journey ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status under railway compensation law.

The deceased, Puran Lal, allegedly purchased a journey ticket to travel from Shahjahanpur to Bareilly on 13 March 2020 and died after accidentally falling from a running train near Bareilly Railway Station.

The appellants contended that the ticket was not recovered during the inquest because it had been lost in the accident.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the appellants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

In appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants relied on the testimony of Arun Kumar, the deceased’s son, and Vinod, who stated that he had accompanied the deceased to the station, witnessed the purchase of the ticket, and seen him board the train.

The respondent relied on the non-recovery of the ticket and the DRM Report, which stated that the deceased was found near a shunting line and that the investigation did not establish that he had been travelling by train.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket during the inquest proceedings?

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, or was attributable to trespass or his own negligence?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from orders of the Tribunal, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents” and liability for compensation.

Section 2(31) of the Railways Act, which inclusively defines “railway” to include railway lines, sidings and yards, was also relevant.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that mere absence or non-recovery of a journey ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status; once the claimant establishes facts giving rise to a reasonable inference of bona fide travel, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut it with cogent evidence.

Rina Devi further establishes that mere negligence is insufficient to deny compensation, since “self-inflicted injury” requires an intention to inflict the injury; compensation may be denied only where a statutory exception under the proviso to Section 124-A applies.

The Court also relied on Rajvati v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2108, and Surjeet Kaur v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3240, for the principle that the location of a body in a railway yard or near railway tracks, without independent eyewitness or cogent evidence of trespass, does not by itself disprove an accidental fall from a train.

The Court found that the appellants’ evidence, considered cumulatively, established a reasonable basis for treating the deceased as a bona fide passenger.

Although Arun Kumar had not personally witnessed the ticket purchase or boarding, Vinod expressly testified that he had accompanied the deceased to Shahjahanpur Railway Station and witnessed those events; his failure to disclose these facts earlier did not, without more, justify rejecting his testimony, particularly as no motive for false implication was shown.

The non-recovery of the ticket and the conclusions in the DRM Report were therefore insufficient to discharge the Railways’ burden under Rina Devi.

On the second issue, the GD Entry and inquest proceedings merely recorded that the deceased was found near OHE poles and a shunting signal; they did not establish that he was crossing the tracks, trespassing, or had been run over while doing so.

Since the body was found near, rather than at a location conclusively detached from, the railway station and railway premises, an accidental fall from a passenger train could not be ruled out.

Further, even if the deceased had been negligent, negligence alone was not a statutory ground to deny compensation, and none of the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A—such as suicide, attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or insanity—was established.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger notwithstanding the non-recovery of the ticket, and that his death constituted an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 2 April 2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.