Non-recovery of a railway ticket alone cannot defeat bona fide passenger status.

On 30 April 2012, Vikash Kumar allegedly travelled from Bakhtiyarpur Junction to Anand Vihar, Delhi, by Train No. 12367, the Vikramshila Express.

The appellant asserted that he was travelling on a valid second-class journey ticket purchased by his brother-in-law, Dailu Kumar/AW-2, and that, owing to overcrowding in the general compartment, he was standing near the gate when he accidentally fell from the moving train and died.

The journey ticket was not recovered from the deceased; only an LIC premium receipt was found during his personal search.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, treating the evidence as insufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and inferring from the injuries that he had been run over rather than having fallen from the train.

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

Whether the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger could be established despite the non-recovery of the journey ticket.

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train and therefore constituted an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim on the basis of the alleged absence of eyewitness evidence and the inference that the deceased had been run over.

The Court applied Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which an accidental fall from a train constitutes an “untoward incident” attracting statutory compensation, subject to the Act.

It held, relying on Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, and Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, that the compensation provisions must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation; non-recovery of a ticket, by itself, does not disprove bona fide passenger status, and once the claimant establishes foundational facts concerning the journey and occurrence, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Railways.

The Court further relied on Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, for the principle that the absence of an eyewitness to the fall, or even negligence on the part of the passenger, does not by itself defeat a claim under Section 124-A.

Beneficial legislation must not be applied with an unduly technical approach, and mere suspicion or conjecture cannot substitute for proof.

The Court found that AW-2 had specifically deposed that he purchased the second-class superfast ticket, handed it to the deceased, and saw him board the Vikramshila Express at Bakhtiyarpur Junction.

This evidence was corroborated by police papers referring to AW-2’s purchase of the ticket and his witnessing the deceased board the train; consequently, the delayed recording of AW-2’s statement and the absence of the ticket were insufficient to displace the appellant’s case.

The police record also concluded, after investigation, that the deceased died after falling from the train.

Against this, the Railways produced no eyewitness, Loco Pilot, Guard, or other railway official to establish that the deceased had not been travelling on the train or had been run over.

The Tribunal’s conclusion based on the nature of the injuries was therefore only an inference and did not amount to cogent evidence of a different occurrence.

Applying the beneficial and purposive interpretation required under the Railways Act, the Court held that doubt concerning the precise mechanics of the accident could not defeat the claim where the surrounding evidence supported an accidental fall.

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train, constituting an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 23 July 2015 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21 September 2026.