No Ticket Recovered, But Delhi HC Holds 13-Year-Old Who Lost Leg Was Bona Fide Train Passenger, Remands Compensation Assessment

The appellant claimed that, on 11 May 2018, he was travelling from Kanpur Central to Ghaziabad on Train No. 12443 UP after a valid ticket had been purchased for him.

He alleged that he fell from the moving train near Bhadan Railway Station and suffered injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg above the knee; he stated that his wallet and ticket were lost in the incident

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the injuries arose from an “untoward incident” but rejected the claim because it was not satisfied that the appellant was a bona fide passenger, relying principally on inconsistencies in his and his mother’s evidence

The appellant appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

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

Applying Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court stated that the claimant bears an initial burden, which may be discharged by an affidavit setting out the relevant facts; once those foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the Railways, and the claim must be assessed on the evidence and surrounding circumstances. The mere absence of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove bona fide travel.

The Court noted that this approach had been reiterated in Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India, including the principle that sworn evidence of ticket purchase and subsequent loss can discharge the claimant’s initial burden, requiring the Railways to produce cogent rebuttal evidence.

The Court also considered the beneficial nature of the legislation.

The appellant testified on oath that he was travelling with a valid ticket and that it was lost with his wallet in the incident.

The Court considered the apparent inconsistency—his affidavit said he purchased the ticket, while his cross-examination indicated that his neighbour purchased separate tickets for them—in light of the appellant’s age of about 13 at the time. It held that this account did not, in substance, contradict the assertion that a separate ticket had been purchased for him.

The Railways produced no witness to rebut his evidence, and the ticket’s non-recovery was not conclusive in the absence of further evidence disproving his account.

The Tribunal therefore gave undue weight to the discrepancy and absence of the ticket.

It allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law, with directions for disbursement within two months of receipt of the order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 1 December 2026.