Non-recovery of a journey ticket does not defeat bona fide passenger status absent cogent contrary evidence.

On 12.12.2024, Anuj Pratap Singh, the deceased, was allegedly travelling from Aligarh to Rajghat Narora on journey ticket No. ACA-84121116.

He fell from a train near Atrauli railway station and died.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence was not established as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

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

They relied on the journey ticket subsequently found in the deceased’s bag and verified during the DRM inquiry.

The Union of India disputed the ticket’s authenticity and contended that the deceased had been run over by Train No. 04378, rather than having fallen from the train in which he was travelling.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the journey ticket not having been recovered during the initial search and having been produced with the claim application.

Whether the deceased’s death constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, or was instead attributable to trespassing, unauthorised presence on the railway track, or being run over by another train.

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

Under the Railways Act, 1989, compensation may arise where death results from an “untoward incident” under Section 124-A, subject to the statutory exceptions, including acts attributable to the deceased’s own criminal or unauthorised conduct.

The Court applied 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 non-recovery of a journey ticket is not by itself fatal; the claimants must initially establish facts and circumstances indicating bona fide travel, after which the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut that case by cogent evidence.

Investigative discrepancies, absent reliable evidence proving a statutory exception or an inconsistent manner of occurrence, cannot alone defeat a claim.

The Court held that the father’s testimony consistently identified the deceased’s journey, ticket number, and destination, and that the ticket had been found in the bag recovered during the jamatalashi.

The ticket was also verified during the DRM inquiry.

Accordingly, the initial discrepancy in the RPF diary regarding the destination did not, by itself, discredit the evidence of bona fide travel.

On the nature of the incident, the Guard was not examined, and the recorded statement merely indicated that an unidentified person had heard that someone had fallen; it did not establish that the deceased was run over by Train No. 04378 or that he had fallen from that train.

The timing of the trains and the delayed discovery of the body likewise did not conclusively disprove an accidental fall.

Since there was no eyewitness or other cogent evidence showing that the deceased was crossing, walking upon, or otherwise unauthorisedly present on the track, the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A were not established.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence fell within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 25.02.2026 was set aside.

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 High Court’s order.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.09.2026.