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

The appellant, Rani, filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation for the death of her son, Kawaljit Singh, in an alleged untoward railway incident on 11 March 2020.

The deceased was stated to have boarded Train No. 12498, Shan-e-Punjab, from Amritsar for Jalandhar and to have accidentally fallen from the moving train near Beas Railway Station at approximately 3:40–3:55 p.m. He sustained severe injuries, including amputation of one leg and fracture of the other, and subsequently died while being taken for medical treatment.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that his death was not established to have resulted from an untoward incident.

The Railway relied principally on the non-recovery of a journey ticket and an allegation that the deceased used to beg while dressed as a eunuch.

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

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a railway ticket from his person?

2. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the Railway could rely on the delayed DRM enquiry and the allegation that the deceased was travelling in disguise to defeat the compensation claim?

4. What compensation and interest were payable to the appellant?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which an accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident” attracting statutory compensation.

Under the principle stated in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, mere non-recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove bona fide passenger status; once the claimant establishes the foundational facts, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410, holding that the compensation applicable on the date of the accident, together with reasonable interest, must be compared with the compensation prescribed on the date of the award, and the claimant is entitled to the higher amount.

Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2007, requires completion of the investigation within 60 days.

The Court found that the Railway’s own contemporaneous records supported the occurrence of an accidental fall from a train. The death report recorded the apparent cause of death as a railway accident caused by falling from a train, described the injuries as caused by a railway train, and recorded extensive traumatic injuries.

The RPF investigation form also recorded the conclusion as an “accidental fall from train”.

Further, Train No. 12498 was recorded as having departed Beas Station at 3:53 p.m., while information regarding the injured person was received at 3:55 p.m.; the deceased was found grievously injured near the track adjacent to the relevant platform.

This established a strong circumstantial nexus between the train and the injuries, notwithstanding the denial of the Loco Pilot and Guard.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court held that the absence of a recovered ticket was not conclusive. The appellant had testified that the deceased possessed a valid ticket which was lost while he was being taken to hospital. The Railway did not examine the concerned Travelling Ticket Examiner or produce verification from reservation or UTS records to rebut that assertion.

The allegation that the deceased was travelling in disguise was also considered unreliable because it was unsupported by independent evidence, contradicted by the brother’s statement that the deceased travelled by train, and not corroborated by the Loco Pilot, Guard, Ticket Examiner, or any co-passenger.

The Court further held that the Railway’s unexplained delay of more than nine months in completing the DRM enquiry, contrary to the 60-day requirement under Rule 7(2), could not operate to the claimant’s disadvantage, particularly where the delay impaired the collection of CCTV footage and other contemporaneous evidence.

The Tribunal’s contrary findings and award were set aside.

The appellant was awarded ₹8,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

The Railway was directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; failing such deposit, the amount would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of judgment until realization.

Disbursement was directed after due verification in accordance with law.