Non-recovery of a railway ticket does not defeat an untoward-incident compensation claim.

Kalicharan Majhi was travelling by train from Madhukunda to Adra on 14 September 2014 when he fell from the running train between Madhukunda and Muradih, sustained injuries and died later that night.

His widow and other claimants sought compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded ₹4 lakh, with interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the claim until the award and 9% thereafter until payment.

The Union of India appealed, challenging the findings on the untoward incident and the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger; the claimants filed a cross-objection seeking enhanced compensation.

Whether the evidence established that the deceased died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the absence of a recovered ticket.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced in light of the applicable compensation provisions and principles.

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes no-fault liability for death or injury resulting from an untoward incident, subject to the statutory exceptions; “untoward incident” is defined in Section 123(c)(2).

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, mere absence of a ticket does not negate a claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger: the claimant bears an initial burden, which may be discharged by an affidavit of relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to establish otherwise.

The Court also referred to Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, Union of India v. Dilip, Manju Agarwal v. Union of India and Anamika Halder v. Union of India in considering the untoward-incident claim, the ticket issue and compensation.

The Court treated the legislation as beneficial and applied the principle that compensation cannot be denied absent an applicable statutory exception.

The widow’s evidence was supported by the police and railway reports, the hospital injury report recording a fall from a train, and the post-mortem materials.

The Court therefore found that the deceased died from a fall from the running train and rejected the Railway’s challenge based on the absence of direct eyewitness testimony or notice to the Railway Authority.

On bona fide passenger status, the Court applied Rina Devi: non-recovery of a ticket, without more, was insufficient to defeat the claim, and the surrounding evidence supported the claimants’ case.

It further held that the deceased’s alleged negligence did not bar recovery under Section 124A, absent an applicable statutory exception.

In view of the amendment concerning compensation and the beneficial nature of the legislation, the Court considered enhancement appropriate.

It disposed of the appeal and cross-objection by modifying the award: the claimants were held entitled to ₹4 lakh with 6% annual interest from the date of filing the claim until judgment, or ₹8 lakh, whichever was higher.

The Union of India was directed to deposit the amount, less any amount already deposited, with the Registrar General within eight weeks of communication of the order; the claimants could withdraw it upon completing the required formalities.