Non-recovery of a journey ticket alone cannot negate bona fide passenger status.

On 21.10.2015, Rajesh Ghosh, aged approximately 26 years, was travelling from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Jhansi by Train No. 14310, the Dehradun–Ujjain Express.

The appellants’ case was that he had purchased a journey ticket and boarded the train, but fell from it between Tughlakabad and Okhla Railway Stations due to heavy overcrowding and a sudden jerk, sustaining fatal injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the incident was an “untoward incident” but rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, principally because no journey ticket was recovered from his person.

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

Whether the non-recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased was, by itself, sufficient to hold that he was not a bona fide passenger.

Whether the appellants’ evidence sufficiently established that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket and was travelling as a bona fide passenger.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, for the principle that the initial burden on claimants to establish bona fide passenger status is not unduly onerous and may be discharged through relevant facts and circumstances; once discharged, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim by cogent evidence.

It also relied on Bhola v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 3278, which recognised that absence or subsequent non-recovery of a ticket may not defeat a claim because the ticket could have been lost or displaced when the passenger fell from the train.

Mere non-recovery of a journey ticket, therefore, cannot by itself establish that the deceased was travelling without a ticket.

The finding that the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” had already been recorded by the Tribunal and was not challenged by the Railways; it consequently attained finality.

On the disputed issue of bona fide passenger status, AW-2, Jitendra, expressly testified that he had accompanied the deceased to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, assisted him in purchasing a ticket for ₹145 for travel to Jhansi, and saw him place the ticket in his bag before boarding the train.

This was direct evidence based on his personal knowledge, not merely hearsay, and was corroborated by AW-1, Maya Ghosh.

Although cash, papers and old railway tickets were recovered from the deceased, the Court held that this circumstance did not conclusively disprove the purchase of the relevant ticket, particularly since the evidence showed that it had been kept in the bag, which was lost in the incident.

The Railways did not effectively rebut the appellants’ evidence or establish that the deceased had boarded Train No. 14310 ticketlessly; the DRM Report relied principally on the absence of a ticket.

Applying the principles in Rina Devi, Lata and Bhola, the Court concluded that the appellants had discharged the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status.

The impugned judgment dated 30.11.2016 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the Court’s order.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with the matter directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21.09.2026.