Non-Recovery of Ticket and Delayed Discovery of Body Cannot Solely Negate "Untoward Incident" and Bona Fide Passenger Status

The appellants challenged the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Sh. Devendra Singh

On 16.08.2019, the deceased allegedly fell from Train No. 54461 while traveling from Aligarh to Dibai after visiting his sister for Raksha Bandhan

His body was discovered near the tracks the following morning

The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger (as no ticket was recovered) and the incident did not qualify as an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, citing a delayed DRM report and the time lapse in discovering the body

1. Whether the incident in question constitutes an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident?

The Court primarily applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes strict liability for "untoward incidents" unless statutory exceptions apply

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, which held that the initial burden of proof regarding bona fide travel is discharged by the claimant filing an affidavit, shifting the onus to the Railways, and that non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive evidence of unauthorized travel

The Court further applied principles from Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, emphasizing the beneficial nature of the legislation

Bhola v. Union of India, which cautioned against over-reliance on delayed DRM reports lacking contemporaneous basis

The Court found that the Tribunal erred in disregarding contemporaneous evidence, noting that GRP and inquest reports placed the body "adjacent to the track" with injuries consistent with an accidental fall, rather than a "run-over" case

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s reliance on the DRM report, noting it was prepared five years late and lacked eyewitness accounts

Regarding the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger, the Court held that the appellants discharged their initial burden through the testimony of AW-2, who witnessed the ticket purchase, and the physical evidence of a "Rakhi" found on the deceased, corroborating the purpose of his journey

The Court determined that the respondent failed to provide rebuttal evidence to satisfy any statutory exceptions under Section 124-A

It criticized the Tribunal's "hyper-technical approach" and held that minor discrepancies in witness testimony or delays in body recovery do not negate a claim for compensation

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal with directions to assess the compensation amount and ensure disbursement within two months

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.05.2026