Non-recovery of ticket alone cannot rebut the legal presumption of a bona fide railway passenger.

On 07.06.2013, Sonu @ Suraj Chopra (the deceased) was traveling from Haridwar to Old Delhi with his brother and a friend. Due to a sudden jolt and overcrowding, he fell from the running train near Sahibabad Railway Station, sustaining fatal injuries.

He was transported to GTB Hospital by his brother, where he succumbed to his injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal") dismissed the claim on 12.04.2017, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no ticket was recovered, and the event was not an "untoward incident".

During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant (the deceased's mother) died and was substituted by her legal representatives.

The court applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes strict liability on the Railways for compensation regarding "untoward incidents," precluding the defense of negligence unless specific statutory exceptions are proven.

It further relied on the principle established in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which clarifies that the mere absence of a recovered ticket does not conclusively prove a passenger was not bona fide; rather, if the claimant discharges the initial burden of proof via affidavit or evidence, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise.

The Court found that the Tribunal incorrectly prioritized minor discrepancies over contemporaneous records.

It highlighted DD No. 20B, recorded shortly after the accident, which corroborated that the deceased's brother brought him to the hospital immediately after a fall from a train.

The Court reasoned that once a fall from a running train is established, the incident is an "untoward incident" under the Act, and allegations of "self-negligence" or overcrowding in the DRM report do not exempt the Railways from liability.

Regarding the deceased’s status, the Court accepted the testimony of the brother (AW-2) and a friend, who stated that tickets were purchased but lost in a bag during the accident.

This testimony, supported by the medical and police record of the brother's presence, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rina Devi.

The Court concluded the respondent failed to lead any substantive evidence to rebut the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an "untoward incident".

The case was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the quantum of compensation and direct its disbursement within two months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.04.2026.