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

On 28 April 2022, Abhishek Mishra travelled from Anand Vihar to Bapudham (Motihari), Bihar, on Train No. 12558, allegedly after purchasing a valid journey ticket. He allegedly fell from the moving train near Mundhapanday, Moradabad, due to heavy rush and passenger push-and-pull, sustained grievous injuries, and later died at District Hospital, Moradabad.

His legal representatives filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, relying principally on the non-recovery of the journey ticket, the DRM Report, and the absence of railway records or eyewitness evidence establishing an “untoward incident”.

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

The High Court separately condoned a delay of 175 days in filing the appeal, considering the appellants’ economic circumstances and the beneficial nature of the legislation.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident, despite the non-recovery of the journey ticket and uncertainty regarding its source of purchase?

2. Whether the deceased’s fall from the train constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, notwithstanding the absence of a railway report, eyewitness, or information to the Guard or Station Master?

3. Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation under the statutory railway accident-compensation scheme?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident” giving rise to statutory compensation, subject to the exceptions in the proviso to Section 124-A.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that the claimant’s initial burden of establishing bona fide passenger status may be discharged through affidavit and consistent evidence, and that mere non-recovery of a ticket does not by itself negate such status; the burden then shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the claim by cogent evidence.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, which reiterated this burden-shifting principle.

In relation to delay, the Court followed Mohsina v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10003, and Reshma v. Union of India, FAO 25/2022, adopting a liberal approach in view of the beneficial nature of the legislation.

The Court found that the appellants had consistently pleaded that the deceased purchased a valid ticket and that it was lost in the accident.

Their evidence was supported by the testimony of the deceased’s brother, who stated that he accompanied the deceased to Anand Vihar Railway Station, witnessed the purchase of the ticket, and saw him board the train.

Applying Rina Devi and Lata, the Court held that this evidence discharged the initial burden and that the Railway Administration failed to establish that the deceased was travelling without authority.

The fact that the alleged vendor, Gupta Communication, was not an authorised railway ticket vendor created doubt regarding the ticket’s source but did not conclusively prove ticketless travel.

On the second issue, the DRM Report, police investigation, DD entries, and contemporaneous medical records showed that the deceased was found injured near the railway track after apparently falling from a train.

The absence of an eyewitness, railway report, or information to the Guard or Station Master was held insufficient to disprove the occurrence.

Once bona fide passenger status was established, the burden shifted to the Railway Administration to prove an exception under the proviso to Section 124-A, which it failed to do.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his accidental fall from the train constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement by the concerned authorities within two months of receiving the order.

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