Non-recovery of ticket and failure to file DRM report cannot defeat compensation claims for untoward railway incidents.

The appellant’s son, Sushil Kumar ("the deceased"), was traveling from Neem-Ka-Thana to Delhi via Chetak Express on July 16, 2016

While approaching Patel Nagar Railway Station, the deceased fell from the train, sustaining grievous injuries to both legs, and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on July 18, 2016

The Railway Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dismissed the claim application on January 12, 2018, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the event an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989, primarily because no journey ticket was recovered from the body

The appellant, belonging to an economically weaker section, filed the present appeal with a delay of 459 days

1. Whether the delay of 459 days in filing the appeal should be condoned given the appellant's economic status?

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

3. Whether the incident constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, regarding the right to appeal

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes strict liability for "untoward incidents"

The court relied on Mohsina v. Union of India to condone delay for economically disadvantaged litigants

substantively, the court applied the principles from Union of India v. Rina Devi, which established that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status if the initial burden of proof is discharged

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, which characterized Section 124-A as beneficial legislation requiring liberal construction

The Court first condoned the 459-day delay, noting that the appellant’s poverty and lack of legal access constituted "sufficient cause"

Regarding the bona fide status, the Court found that the testimony of AW-2 (the deceased’s cousin), who claimed to have purchased the ticket, was consistent and sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof

The Court criticized the Tribunal for dismissing this testimony as "artificial" without rebuttal evidence from the respondent

Crucially, the Court drew an adverse inference against the Railways for failing to produce the mandatory Statutory Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report

On the nature of the incident, the Court highlighted that medical records (MLC and death summary) and police Daily Diary (DD) entries explicitly recorded a "railway traffic accident" and a "fall from a train"

The Court determined that the Tribunal adopted an "unduly rigid standard of proof" that ignored the beneficial nature of the legislation

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death resulted from an untoward incident

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and disburse the compensation amount within two months

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on March 30, 2026