Non-recovery of ticket and lack of eyewitness Guard testimony cannot negate bona fide passenger status in untoward incidents.

The appellants’ deceased, Vijay Kumar, allegedly fell from passenger train no. 54050 on May 25, 2017, near Rohtak Railway Yard while traveling from Mundlana to Rohtak

The incident resulted in the amputation of both legs; he later succumbed to his injuries at PGIMS, Rohtak

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on November 2, 2020, asserting the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the event did not constitute an "untoward incident," suggesting instead that the deceased was "crossing the railway line"

The appellants challenged this, citing an independent eyewitness and official memos

1. Whether the delay of 128 days in filing the appeal should be condoned given the appellants' socio-economic status

2. Whether the death of the deceased constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989

3. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the absence of a recovered physical ticket

The Court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" and establish the principle of strict liability for the Railways unless specific exceptions (e.g., suicide, intoxication) are proven

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that the non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive proof of a passenger not being bona fide and that such cases are decided on the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than strict proof

Furthermore, it followed Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, which mandates a liberal and beneficial interpretation of compensation provisions

and Mohsina v. Union of India regarding the condonation of delay for claimants with poor socio-economic backgrounds

The Court found that the Tribunal ignored critical evidence, specifically the Station Master’s memo and the testimony of an independent witness, Sunny, who saw the deceased fall from the train

The Court noted that the initial DRM/RPF inquiry records mentioned "Ticket Lost," yet the final conclusion of "crossing the line" was unsupported by any witness statements or contemporaneous material

Regarding the bona fide passenger status, the Court accepted the testimony of Satbir Singh, who witnessed the deceased purchase a ticket

The Court reasoned that since the Railways failed to prove any statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A (such as suicide or criminal acts), and the preponderance of probabilities favored the appellants' version of a fall from a running train, the Tribunal’s findings were contrary to the record

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation in accordance with the law within two months. The appeal was allowed