Non-recovery of journey ticket cannot be sole ground to negate status of bona fide passenger in untoward incidents.

On 26.08.2016, Shubham Rawat (the deceased) fell from a train at Shivaji Bridge Railway Station while traveling from New Delhi to Ghaziabad, resulting in his death

The Appellants filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which categorized the event as an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no journey ticket was recovered from his person

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference despite the testimony of the deceased's brother (AW-2), who stated they had purchased tickets together and that the ticket was likely lost during the accident

1. Whether the non-recovery of a journey ticket from the body of the deceased is sufficient to negate his status as a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989

2. Whether the Appellants are entitled to compensation for an "untoward incident" when the factum of travel is supported by oral evidence despite the loss of documentary proof

The Court primarily applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the definition of an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989

Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which established that mere non-recovery of a ticket is not determinative of bona fide travel and that the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once the foundational facts of travel are established

The principle from Jagveeri v. Union of India, which recognizes that lighter objects like tickets are easily lost during violent accidents or medical handling, unlike heavier objects like mobile phones

The High Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning—dismissing the claim because a mobile phone was recovered but a ticket was not—to be based on conjecture rather than law

The Court observed that the testimony of AW-2 was consistent and unshaken during cross-examination, providing a plausible account of the ticket purchase

Citing Jagveeri, the Court noted that a ticket is a "lighter object" prone to flying off during a "gruesome and fatal train accident" or being lost during the removal of clothes for medical treatment

Since the incident was already verified as an "untoward incident" via DD entries and MLC reports, the Court held that the Railways failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of bona fide travel

The Court ruled that the consistent oral testimony, coupled with the circumstances of the accident, sufficiently established the claim despite the missing ticket

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and disburse the appropriate compensation within two months