Non-recovery of a ticket and unsupported run-over conclusions cannot defeat an untoward-incident compensation claim.

On 2 April 2023, Ravi Kant was allegedly travelling from Kasganj to Agra by Train No. 15056, Agra Fort Express, on a second-class journey ticket.

It was claimed that, while the train was passing between Kasganj and Marhara railway stations, he accidentally fell from the train and died.

The ticket and his other belongings were allegedly lost in the incident.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

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

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

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes strict liability on the Railways for death or injury caused by an untoward incident, subject to statutory exceptions.

Under the principles stated in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, non-recovery of a ticket is not by itself conclusive against bona fide passenger status: the claimants must first place relevant facts and circumstances establishing bona fide travel, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim by cogent evidence.

The Court further relied on Smt. Sanju Devi & Anr. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3366, for the principle that, given the strict-liability and beneficial nature of Section 124-A, an exception to liability must be established through evidence and cannot rest merely on unsupported conclusions.

The Court held that the initial burden regarding bona fide travel was discharged through the testimony of AW-2, Umesh, who stated that he accompanied the deceased to Kasganj station, witnessed the purchase of the second-class ticket, and saw him off, as well as through AW-1 Reeta Devi’s evidence concerning the journey and ticket purchase.

The omission to mention in the claim application that the ticket had been purchased in AW-2’s presence was treated as a discrepancy concerning the detail of his testimony, not his identity, particularly since his name appeared in the claim application and the Railways led no oral rebuttal evidence.

On the nature of the incident, the Court found that the Station Master’s memo merely recorded that a dead body was lying “inside the track” and contained no eyewitness account of a run-over or trespass.

The DRM Report and other railway records only recorded the conclusion that the deceased had come in the “chapet” of a moving train; they did not establish, through independent evidence, how he came to be on the track.

The severe injuries and condition of the body were held insufficient, by themselves, to conclusively prove that the deceased was crossing the track rather than having fallen from the train and subsequently come under its wheels.

Since the alleged statutory exception was not proved and the legislation is beneficial in nature, the Court extended the benefit of the strict-liability framework to the appellants.

It held that Ravi Kant was a bona fide passenger and that his death constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 June 2025 was set aside.

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

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21 September 2026, and the appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.