### Non-Recovery of Ticket Does Not Negate Status of Bona Fide Passenger If Foundational Facts Establish Railway Travel

In brief

The question

1. Whether the death of the deceased constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989

The court held

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an untoward incident

It also directed

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess and award compensation to the appellants within two months. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.05.2026

01Facts

The appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dated 20.12.2016, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Ashraf Ali (the deceased) on 06.08.2015

¶ 1

The deceased had traveled from Allahabad to Ghaziabad under a valid reserved ticket in the Prayagraj Express

¶ 3

While continuing his journey toward Old Delhi, he allegedly fell from a train near Vivek Vihar Railway Station, sustaining fatal injuries

¶ 3

The Tribunal acknowledged the death as an "untoward incident" but denied the claim, concluding the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no ticket for the Ghaziabad-Delhi leg was recovered and the DRM report suggested he was a trespasser crossing the tracks

¶ 2, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the death of the deceased constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989

¶ 9

ii.2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket for the specific segment where the accident occurred

¶ 10

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which provide for compensation in cases of "untoward incidents" involving accidental falls from trains

¶ 9

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, which established that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status if foundational facts of travel are proven

¶ 17

The Court cited Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, emphasizing that the Railways Act is beneficial legislation requiring liberal interpretation

¶ 18

The Court cited Jagveeri v. Union of India, noting that small items like tickets are easily lost during violent accidents compared to heavier objects like mobile phones

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23

Railways Act, 1989 Section 123

04Reasoning

The Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning speculative and contrary to the record. It noted that the deceased's initial journey from Allahabad to Ghaziabad was verified by official railway reservation records and PNR status

¶ 12

The testimony of witness AW-2, who saw the deceased purchase the onward ticket at Ghaziabad, was wrongly discarded by the Tribunal based on "conjectural assumptions"

¶ 13-14

The Court observed that once the appellants established foundational facts of a genuine journey, the burden of proof shifted to the Railways to disprove bona fide status

¶ 15, 17

The respondent failed to provide direct evidence of trespassing; conversely, the nature of the injuries and the recovery of other personal belongings like bank cards and a mobile phone supported the theory of an accidental fall rather than track-crossing

¶ 8-9, 19