Non-recovery of a return ticket does not defeat bona fide passenger status supported by circumstantial evidence.

Himanshu Sharma allegedly travelled from Gajraula to Dehradun on 19 June 2023 in search of employment. After informing his father on 20 June 2023 that no employment had been arranged and that he was returning home, he allegedly travelled towards Gajraula by Train No. 14042, the Mussoorie Express. His body was subsequently found between Fazalpur and Muzzampur Railway Stations, and the appellants claimed that he had accidentally fallen from the moving train due to a sudden jerk and overcrowding.

During the inquest, a railway ticket for the Gajraula–Dehradun journey dated 19 June 2023, along with a mobile phone and cash, was recovered from him; no return ticket was found.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding that the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger and the occurrence of an “untoward incident” had not been proved.

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

Whether the evidence established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the occurrence, despite the non-recovery of a return journey ticket?

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989, particularly an accidental fall from Train No. 14042?

The Court applied the statutory scheme governing compensation for railway accidents under the Railways Act, 1989, including the concept of an “untoward incident,” and exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine 1350, the Court held that the claimant must initially place foundational facts establishing bona fide travel and the occurrence, but the mere absence or non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive against bona fide passenger status.

The Court further applied the principle that railway compensation provisions are beneficial in nature and that a claim should not be rejected merely because the timing of the accident cannot be established with exact precision, particularly in the absence of positive contrary evidence.

The Court found that the appellants had discharged their initial burden by relying on the recovered Gajraula–Dehradun ticket, the inquest and jamatalashi records, and the father’s consistent testimony that the deceased had commenced his return journey from Dehradun.

The respondent did not dispute the deceased’s journey to Dehradun or produce evidence showing that he had not begun his return journey. Accordingly, the non-recovery of a return ticket could not, by itself, negate bona fide passenger status.

On the occurrence, the Tribunal had treated the deceased’s body being noticed at approximately 1:35 a.m. and Train No. 14042 passing the location at approximately 1:49 a.m. as disproving the alleged fall.

The High Court held that this reasoning overlooked the train’s earlier movement: the train had passed Fazalpur and Muzzampur at approximately 12:53 a.m. and 12:50 a.m., respectively, proceeded to Najibabad, and thereafter returned towards those stations after departing Najibabad at 1:32 a.m.

Thus, the train’s subsequent passage at 1:49 a.m. did not exclude the possibility that the deceased had fallen during its earlier movement. The TSR, read with the return-loop movement and the surrounding circumstances, did not disprove the appellants’ case.

The impugned judgment dated 15 March 2024 was set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8 October 2026.