Non-recovery of ticket and non-reporting by train staff cannot override consistent contemporaneous official records establishing an untoward incident.

The appellant filed a claim application (OA/II(u)/262/2015) before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the amputation of his right leg.

According to the appellant, on 20.06.2015, while travelling from Samalkha to Delhi Sarai Rohilla on a valid journey ticket (No. 47167664), he fell from the moving train due to a sudden jerk and overcrowding at Subzi Mandi Railway Station.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition via order dated 04.05.2017, observing that no ticket was recovered from the appellant's person and that the train's Guard/Driver did not report any incident of a person falling from the train.

1. Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident despite the non-recovery of a physical ticket from his person.

2. Whether the accident in question falls within the definition of an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, defines an 'untoward incident' as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

In Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Supreme Court held that the initial burden of proof regarding being a bona fide passenger lies on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit; the burden then shifts to the Railways.

The principle of 'strict liability' applies to railway accidents under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, where the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation regardless of any wrongful act, neglect, or default.

The court observed that the DRM report and the Station Master's memo clearly recorded that the appellant sustained injuries due to a fall from a train, which are contemporaneous official records that carry weight.

The court reasoned that the mere fact that the ticket was not recovered from the person of the appellant cannot be a ground to reject the claim, especially when the appellant has consistently stated the ticket number and the same was mentioned in the police records.

The court found that the lack of reporting by the train staff (Guard/Driver) cannot override the evidence of the GRP and the Station Master who attended the victim immediately after the fall.

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside, and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the incident.