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

Suresh Kumar travelled from Muzaffarnagar to Saharanpur by an express train on 30 March 2022.

The appellants alleged that, owing to heavy passenger rush and pushing inside the train, he accidentally fell from the moving train between Muzaffarnagar and Bamanheri railway stations and suffered fatal injuries.

His brother, Narendra Kumar/AW-2, stated that he had accompanied the deceased to Muzaffarnagar Railway Station at about 2:00 a.m. and had witnessed him purchase a journey ticket to Saharanpur.

No ticket was recovered from the deceased during the inquest or jamatalashi.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, decided the claim application against the appellants by judgment dated 18 October 2023, which was challenged under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Railway contended that neither an authorised ticket nor direct evidence of boarding or falling from the train had been established, and that the deceased’s body being found in two parts was inconsistent with the appellants’ case.

Whether the absence of recovery of a journey ticket was sufficient to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the deceased’s death was the result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, or fell within any statutory exception to the Railway’s liability.

Whether the Tribunal’s judgment was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for assessment and payment of compensation.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 permits an appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, death or injury arising from an “untoward incident” attracts statutory compensation liability, subject to the exceptions specified in Section 124-A.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, establish that mere non-recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove bona fide passenger status; the claimant must initially establish the relevant circumstances, after which the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the claim by cogent evidence.

The Railway must also establish a statutory exception, such as unauthorised presence on the track or another excluded circumstance, to avoid liability under Section 124-A.

The Court held that the appellants’ initial burden was discharged through the direct testimony of Narendra Kumar, who had accompanied the deceased to the station and specifically witnessed his purchase of the journey ticket.

Consequently, the absence of the ticket from the deceased’s body could not, standing alone, negate his status as a bona fide passenger.

The Railway produced no evidence showing that the deceased was travelling without authority or was otherwise not a passenger.

On the nature of the incident, the statements of the two locomotive pilots merely established that a body had been noticed on the track and that no untoward incident had occurred involving one of their trains; they did not establish how the deceased came to be on the track.

The DRM report likewise did not show that he was crossing the track or identify the train responsible for the injuries.

The fact that the body was found in two parts, or that the precise train involved could not be identified, was insufficient to establish a statutory exception to Section 124-A.

The Court therefore treated the death as resulting from an untoward incident.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 18 October 2023 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 appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with the matter directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 16 September 2026.