Non-recovery of ticket cannot negate bona fide passenger status where oral evidence and official records establish travel.

On June 14, 2022, Mohd. Fahad Mev (the deceased) accompanied his relatives to Alwar Railway Station. While his relatives held reserved tickets for Train No. 12916 (Ashram Express), the deceased reportedly purchased a second-class ticket to join them.

While attempting to board a general compartment as the train started moving, he fell between the platform and the train, resulting in instantaneous death.

The Railway Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal") dismissed the claim on January 31, 2024, holding that while the death resulted from an "untoward incident," the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no ticket was recovered from his body.

The appellants challenged this, citing oral testimonies of co-passengers and verified PNR details of the accompanying family.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989, despite the non-recovery of a physical ticket from his person.

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for death resulting from an "untoward incident" under Section 124-A of the Act.

The court primarily applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" (including accidental falls from trains) and the railway's liability for compensation.

It heavily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), which established that the mere absence or non-recovery of a ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, and that the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once foundational facts of travel are established.

The Court observed that the Tribunal’s finding of an "untoward incident" had already attained finality as the respondent did not challenge it.

Regarding the bona fide status, the Court found that the Ticket Verification Report confirmed the journey details (PNR No. 2442896404) of the deceased's companions.

The Court prioritized the consistent oral testimonies of AW-1 and AW-2, who witnessed the ticket purchase and the accident, over the conjectural conclusions of the DRM report.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court reasoned that since the appellants established the foundational facts of travel through verified PNRs of family members and eye-witness accounts, the burden shifted to the Railways to prove the deceased was a trespasser, which they failed to discharge.

The Court dismissed minor discrepancies in witness statements as natural in the context of traumatic incidents.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 31.01.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to assess and disburse the compensation amount within two months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on May 15, 2026.