Non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself, negate bona fide passenger status.

On 03.10.2017, Yogesh Kumar allegedly travelled by train from Sasni to Aligarh. The appellants’ case was that, due to overcrowding, a co-passenger pushed him and a sudden jerk caused him to fall from the train, resulting in his death. The journey ticket was allegedly lost in the occurrence.

The deceased’s body was subsequently found near the railway line at KM 1305/25–27, beneath a road overbridge. The Station Master’s memo referred to the deceased as having been “run over” by a train, and the panchnama recorded the body as mutilated.

The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the death was not established to have resulted from an “untoward incident.” The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the non-recovery of the journey ticket was sufficient to disprove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Whether the deceased’s death occurred in an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, namely, by accidentally falling from a passenger train rather than being run over while on the railway track.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning an “untoward incident.”

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that the mere absence or non-recovery of a ticket from an injured or deceased person does not, by itself, disprove bona fide passenger status; the claimant must first place relevant facts and circumstances on record, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, which reiterated the same principle.

A finding that the deceased was run over could not be based merely on conjecture, surmise, or the condition of the body without positive evidence establishing that manner of death.

The Court held that the appellants’ version that the deceased had travelled from Sasni to Aligarh on a valid ticket remained consistent and had also been supported by affidavit. In those circumstances, the loss or non-recovery of the ticket could not be treated as conclusive against them.

Although the contemporaneous railway records established a railway-related death, they did not conclusively establish that the deceased had been standing on the track and was run over. There was no eyewitness, no Railway official who had witnessed the occurrence, no evidence that the deceased was walking on or present upon the track before the incident, and no identification of the train that allegedly ran over him.

The DRM Report’s suggestion that the deceased “may have been” standing at the gate or sitting on the footboard was speculative, and the Tribunal itself had recognised that the relevant conclusions rested on conjectures and surmises.

Accordingly, the possibility of a run-over could not displace the appellants’ case of an accidental fall from a moving train.

It further held that the material relied upon by the Tribunal did not conclusively establish a run-over and that the surrounding circumstances supported the claim that the deceased died in an accidental fall from the train, constituting an “untoward incident.”

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 07.02.2022 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.2026.