Non-recovery of a journey ticket alone does not defeat bona fide passenger status.

On 8 September 2014, Raj Kumar @amp; Randhir travelled with his brother, Durga Prasad, from Bahadurgarh to New Delhi.

The appellants claimed that the deceased had purchased a journey ticket for two persons and fell from a running train while it was approaching Sarai Rohilla Railway Station.

He was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he died from his injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor the victim of an “untoward incident,” principally because no ticket was recovered and railway records described him variously as a trespasser, a person attempting to board the moving train, or a person who had jumped from it.

The appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

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

Whether the deceased’s injuries and subsequent death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989

Whether the railway authorities established any statutory exception under Section 124-A so as to avoid liability

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which an accidental fall from a train constitutes an “untoward incident,” subject to the statutory exceptions in Section 124-A.

It held that mere non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive proof that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, the Court reiterated that the claimant may discharge the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status through affidavit or testimony, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove it.

The Railways must also establish, through cogent evidence, that the occurrence fell within one of the statutory exceptions to Section 124-A.

The Court found that AW-2, the deceased’s brother and co-passenger, specifically deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket for two persons and kept it in his shirt pocket.

Although his conduct and relationship with the deceased warranted caution in assessing his testimony, they did not justify rejecting his account altogether; his evidence discharged the initial burden of establishing bona fide passenger status.

The contemporaneous DD entries, Station Master’s memo, MLC, and death report consistently showed that the deceased suffered injuries in a railway accident and was attended to by the Guard.

The conflicting descriptions in the Guard’s records—“jumped from the running train,” “trespasser,” and “trying to board the running train”—did not conclusively prove intentional jumping or trespass.

The Guard was not examined, his initial memo was prepared in haste, and there was no independent eyewitness establishing a statutory exception or deliberate misconduct by the deceased.

On the cumulative evidence, the Court treated the occurrence as an accidental fall from the train amounting to an “untoward incident” under the Act.

It held that the deceased was sufficiently shown to be a bona fide passenger and that he sustained injuries in an accidental fall constituting an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 July 2016 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 11 September 2026.