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

The appellant, Sukhmandar Singh, travelled to Delhi in search of employment and, on 13 July 2016, allegedly boarded an EMU train from Old Delhi Railway Station to Ghaziabad. His uncle, Singara Singh, accompanied him to the station and purchased a journey ticket for him. Due to heavy congestion, the appellant stood near the doorway; when the train started with a violent jerk, he allegedly fell from it and sustained grievous injuries, including amputation of both legs below the knees, head injuries and broken teeth. He was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi.

The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected his claim, holding that he was neither a bona fide passenger nor the victim of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal relied upon the absence of a recovered ticket, discrepancies in the statements of the appellant and his uncle, and the DRM/RPF material suggesting that the appellant had been run over while trespassing or crossing the railway tracks.

The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. He also sought condonation of a delay of 786 days in filing the appeal, stating that he was poor, illiterate and unable to obtain timely legal advice.

Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 786-day delay in filing the appeal?

Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket?

Whether the injuries were caused by an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, or whether the appellant had been run over while trespassing on the railway tracks?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

It adopted a liberal approach to condonation of delay in matters arising from beneficial and social-welfare legislation intended to compensate victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents.

On the issue of bona fide passenger status, the Court relied on 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 the claimant may initially discharge the burden by filing an affidavit or giving consistent evidence regarding the journey, after which the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the claim through cogent evidence.

The Court also relied on Dharamawati v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1164, holding that railway records and surrounding circumstances must be assessed cumulatively rather than by isolating individual discrepancies.

For determining the scope of the railway premises, the Court referred to Section 2(31) of the Railways Act, 1989, which inclusively defines “railway” to include lines, sidings, yards and branches used in connection with a railway.

It further relied on Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2351, for the principle that the location of the injured person or body, by itself, does not conclusively establish trespassing or disprove an accidental fall from a train.

The Court found sufficient cause for the delay because the appellant’s poverty, illiteracy and inability to obtain timely legal assistance had to be considered in light of the beneficial object of the governing legislation; accordingly, the 786-day delay was condoned.

On the merits, the appellant consistently stated that he had travelled on a valid ticket purchased by his uncle. The uncle corroborated the purchase of the ticket and the appellant’s boarding of the train. The Court held that the mere non-recovery of the ticket—particularly where the appellant claimed that his belongings were lost in the accident—did not discharge the Railway Administration’s burden of proving that he was ticketless.

The discrepancy concerning the time of arrival at the station was treated as minor and insufficient to discredit the consistent account of the ticket purchase and intended journey.

The Court further held that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the appellant had been run over while trespassing was based substantially on inference from the DRM Report and the position in which he was found, without ocular evidence or conclusive material establishing that he was crossing the tracks.

The fact that he was found near a shunting line, or that he described himself as having been “run over,” did not exclude the possibility that he had first fallen from a moving passenger train and thereafter come under its wheels.

The Railway Administration also failed to produce material showing the precise movement of the relevant train. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence supported the appellant’s status as a bona fide passenger and the occurrence as an untoward incident.

It held that the appellant was a bona fide passenger and that the injuries resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s judgment dated 2 April 2018 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable and issue consequential directions.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 30 September 2026.