Non-recovery of ticket and absence of scheduled train stoppage do not negate bona fide passenger status or untoward incident.

The deceased, Riyasat Ali, was traveling from Rampur to Lucknow on September 30, 2017, via Train No. 13308.

Near Malihabad Railway Station, he fell from the moving train due to a sudden jerk and sustained fatal injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissed the claim on February 28, 2022, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an "untoward incident" because no ticket was recovered and the train had no scheduled halt at Malihabad.

The Appellants challenged this judgment, accompanied by an application to condone a 234-day delay in re-filing.

1. Whether the delay of 234 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned.

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the absence of a recovered journey ticket.

3. Whether the incident of falling from a train at a non-stoppage station constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied the principles of condonation of delay for beneficial legislation, citing Mohsina v. Union of India and Reshma v. Union of India.

On merits, it applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" and establish the Railways' strict liability.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which held that the mere non-recovery of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status if the claimant provides a supporting affidavit.

Additionally, it applied Jai Pal & Ors. v. Union of India and Ramesh Suneja v. Union of India, establishing that falling from a train where there is no scheduled halt cannot automatically be presumed as a voluntary act or criminal negligence by the passenger.

Regarding the procedural delay, the Court adopted a liberal approach consistent with the beneficial nature of the Act, accepting the explanation regarding misplaced certified copies.

On the issue of passenger status, the Court found the testimony of the deceased's son (AW-2) credible; he testified to purchasing the ticket and seeing his father board the train.

The Court rejected the Tribunal's dismissal of AW-2’s testimony for lack of mention in initial pleadings, noting that pleadings require material facts, not every evidentiary detail.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court held the burden shifted to the Railways, which failed to provide rebuttal evidence.

Regarding the "untoward incident," the Court noted that the Station Master’s records and RPF entries confirmed the fall from Train No. 13308.

It reasoned that the absence of a scheduled stop at Malihabad is insufficient to prove the deceased "voluntarily" alighted from a moving train; such a conclusion without direct evidence is a mere assumption. Since the Railways failed to prove any exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A, strict liability remained.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an "untoward incident" under the Act.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated February 28, 2022, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within two months. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on August 13, 2026.