Passenger with valid ticket for previous leg of journey remains bona fide during immediate transfer.

On 03.06.2024, the deceased arrived at Ahmedabad (ADI) station from Shalimar via Train No. 12906 at 09:21 hrs on Platform No. 3.

He intended to board Train No. 20936 (Indore-Gandhidham Express), departing from Platform No. 4 at 09:22 hrs.

While attempting to board during the one-minute interval, he lost his balance due to a jerk and jolt, fell into the gap between the platform and the train, and died on the spot.

The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8 lakh plus interest, finding the deceased a "bona fide passenger" despite not having a physical ticket for the second leg of the journey.

The Union of India appealed, contending the deceased was ticketless and the incident resulted from "self-inflicted injury" while boarding a moving train.

1. Whether a passenger who has completed one leg of a journey and is in the process of boarding a connecting train without a fresh ticket due to time constraints can be classified as a "bona fide passenger" under the Railways Act.

2. Whether the death resulting from a fall while boarding a train under these circumstances constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which provides for compensation for "untoward incidents" involving bona fide passengers.

Section 138(2)(b) of the Act, which permits a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) to issue an Excess Fare Ticket to a passenger who has completed one journey and is continuing.

Rajni v. Union of India (2025 AIR SC 4892), establishing that proof in such claims is based on the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

Shrikumar Gupta v. Union of India (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115), which held that boarding a wrong train or making a mistake does not strip a passenger of their bona fide status.

The Court observed that the deceased held a valid PNR (6436353866) for the journey to ADI and was an established passenger upon arrival at 09:21 hrs.

Given the negligible one-minute window between the arrival of his first train and the departure of the connecting train, it was physically impossible to purchase a fresh ticket.

The Court reasoned that under Section 138, the deceased could have regularized his travel by paying excess fare on board, thus maintaining his status as a bona fide passenger.

Regarding the cause of death, the Court noted that CCTV footage and the DRM report corroborated an accidental fall due to "jerk and jolt" rather than negligence or a self-inflicted act.

Applying the "preponderance of probabilities," the Court held that the foundational facts—possession of a prior ticket and an accidental fall within the precinct of the railway—were established.

The Court affirmed that technicalities like the absence of a fresh ticket for a connecting journey cannot defeat a claim under a welfare statute when the passenger's intent and prior status are established; consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s award.