Non-recovery of ticket and minor witness discrepancies cannot defeat compensation claims for established untoward railway incidents.

On 26.10.2014, the deceased (Aman) was traveling from Bahadurgarh to Nangloi via the Janta Express.

Upon arrival at Nangloi Railway Station, he allegedly fell from the train due to a sudden jerk and heavy rush, sustaining fatal injuries; he subsequently died during treatment.

The Appellants filed a claim application (OA/II(U)/0096/2015), which the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed on 20.12.2016, ruling that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the event was not an "untoward incident".

The Appellants challenged this dismissal, arguing that contemporaneous evidence (MLC, post-mortem, and DD entry) proved a railway accident occurred and that the absence of a recovered ticket does not negate bona fide status.

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

2. Whether the alleged incident falls within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989?

The Court applied the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, specifically regarding the definition of "untoward incident" and the liability of the Railways to pay compensation.

It relied extensively on the precedent established in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which clarifies the burden of proof regarding bona fide travel.

The principle dictates that an initial affidavit by the claimants asserting the purchase of a ticket shifts the onus of proof to the Railways to prove the passenger was a trespasser.

The Court applied evidentiary standards regarding the primacy of contemporaneous medical and police records over inferential DRM reports.

The Court found that the Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence.

Contemporaneous documents—including the DD No. 14PP, the MLC, the post-mortem report, and the death certificate—all consistently recorded the cause of death as a "train accident" or "railway accident".

The Court rejected the DRM report’s finding of "self-negligence," noting it was based on mere inference rather than eyewitness accounts and thus could not override consistent medical and police records.

Regarding the deceased’s status, the Court held that the Appellants discharged their initial burden through the testimony of AW-1 and AW-2, who confirmed the purchase of a ticket and the boarding of the train.

Following Rina Devi, the Court ruled that the mere non-recovery of a ticket is not fatal to a claim.

The Court determined that the discrepancies in witness testimonies noted by the Tribunal were minor, ancillary, and did not impact the core occurrence of the accident.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and allowed the appeal.

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal with directions to calculate the compensation amount and ensure disbursement to the Appellants within two months.