Minor timing discrepancies do not displace contemporaneous railway records of a passenger falling from a train.

The appellant sought compensation for the death of her husband, alleging that he was travelling from Bakhtiyarpur Junction to Anand Vihar on Train No. 12505 with a valid second-class ticket and fell from the moving train.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, relying on the non-recovery of a ticket and discrepancies in the timings recorded in railway and police documents.

The Delhi High Court condoned a 257-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the appellant’s circumstances and the beneficial nature of the legislation.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s findings that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that his death did not result from an untoward incident.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite non-recovery of the journey ticket.

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, having regard to the Station Master’s memo and discrepancies in later records.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal.

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger’s accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident”.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the mere absence of a ticket on the deceased does not, by itself, defeat a claim; the claimant may discharge the initial burden by establishing relevant facts and circumstances, after which the Railways must rebut the claim with cogent evidence.

The Court noted that this principle was reiterated in Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India.

The occurrence is assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and minor discrepancies in subsequent records do not necessarily displace an earlier contemporaneous record.

The appellant specifically pleaded that the deceased had bought a valid ticket and that it was lost in the incident; the Railways did not displace that assertion with cogent evidence.

The Court therefore held that non-recovery of the ticket could not, in isolation, outweigh the other circumstances supporting the alleged journey.

As to the fall, the Station Master’s memo—the earliest contemporaneous railway record—recorded information that a passenger had fallen from Train No. 12505.

Although later documents recorded differing timings, the Court considered those variations peripheral and insufficient to disprove the occurrence recorded in the memo or to establish fabrication, particularly in the absence of direct evidence of a contrary account.

The Tribunal had therefore erred in treating those discrepancies as decisive.

It remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law and directed the authorities concerned to disburse it within two months of receiving the order; the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 13 November 2026.