Non-recovery of ticket from deceased's person cannot conclusively deny status of a bona fide passenger.

The appellant’s son, Manoj Kumar Srivastava, allegedly fell from a running Lucknow-Kasganj Passenger Train on 16.04.2012 while traveling from Farrukhabad to Dariyaganj

His body was recovered between Bhatasa and Kaimganj stations with severe mutilating injuries consistent with a railway accident

Although a journey ticket was not recovered during the initial panchnama, it was subsequently produced by the claimants

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) dismissed the claim on 31.01.2025, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the death caused by an "untoward incident"

The appellant challenged this dismissal, asserting that the DRM report and post-mortem supported the claim of an accidental fall

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the incident in question falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?

The court primarily applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, regarding the definition of an "untoward incident" and the strict liability of the Railways to pay compensation

It relied on the principle from Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, establishing that liability under Section 124-A is strict and negligence is irrelevant

Furthermore, it applied the evidentiary standards set in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which holds that the mere non-recovery of a ticket from the deceased's person does not disprove their status as a bona fide passenger

...and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, which mandates that once a claimant discharges the initial burden of proof, the onus shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim

The court found that contemporaneous evidence, including the panchnama, GD entry, and post-mortem report, consistently indicated that the deceased died due to injuries sustained from falling from a moving train

It noted that the RCT's conclusion—that the deceased came under the train through means other than travel—rested on "conjecture" and ignored the lack of direct evidence to support such a finding

Regarding the bona fide passenger status, the court reasoned that the appellant discharged the initial burden by providing an affidavit and the journey ticket, which was corroborated by statements in the DRM report indicating the ticket was handed over to the family

The court emphasized that in cases of severe bodily mutilation, it is common for personal belongings to be displaced

Since the respondent failed to verify the ticket or lead evidence to rebut the appellant’s version, the presumption of bona fide travel remained unrebutted

The court ruled that the Railways' liability is attracted under the principle of strict liability as no statutory exceptions were proven

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and disburse the appropriate compensation to the appellant within two months

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27.04.2026