Non-recovery of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status where credible evidence establishes an accidental fall.

The appellants claimed compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, alleging that the deceased fell from a crowded Down Budge Budge local between Akra and Nangi stations on 16 July 2022, was taken to hospital, and later died from his injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the appellants had not proved either an untoward incident or the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.

On appeal, the appellants relied on the testimony of co-passenger AW-2, police records, the post-mortem report, and the Railway’s enquiry report; the Railway disputed that these established a fall from the train and pointed to the absence of a recovered ticket and contemporaneous railway records.

Whether the evidence established that the deceased’s injuries and death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train, amounting to an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines an “untoward incident” to include an accidental fall of a passenger from a train; Section 124A provides for compensation for death or injury resulting from an untoward incident.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status: the claimant must first establish the relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railway, and the question is decided on the evidence and attending circumstances.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar for the principle that the Railways Act is social-welfare legislation and should not be construed narrowly.

It assessed the claim on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court accepted AW-2’s evidence that he travelled with the deceased, saw him purchase a ticket, and went to the accident spot and took him to hospital; it found that the material parts of his testimony were not shaken in cross-examination.

The Court considered that testimony corroborated by the post-mortem report, the police report under Section 174 CrPC, and AW-2’s statement to the RPF.

It held that the non-recovery of a ticket was not decisive: AW-2’s evidence about the deceased’s ticket purchase, together with the evidence that the deceased’s purse and ticket were not found, supported bona fide passenger status under Rina Devi. Considering the evidence cumulatively and applying the balance-of-probabilities standard, the Court concluded that the deceased died following an accidental fall from the train.

It held the appellants entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim until the date of judgment. The Railway was directed to deposit the amount with the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks of communication of the order, after which the appellants could withdraw it upon completing the required formalities.