Possession of Valid Ticket Rebuts Run-Over Theory and Establishes Status as Bona Fide Passenger

On 23.04.2018, the deceased (Navratan) purchased a journey ticket at Ajaibpur Railway Station to travel to Aligarh

The appellants claimed that while attempting to board a train, the deceased fell due to a heavy rush of passengers, sustaining fatal injuries

A valid ticket was recovered during the search (*jamatalashi*)

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, concluding that the incident was not an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, as the body was found on a main line different from the train's arrival line and the death appeared to be a "run-over" case caused by the victim's negligence

Whether the deceased was a *bona fide* passenger despite the incident occurring before the formal commencement of the journey.

Whether the incident constitutes an "untoward incident" (accidental fall) under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The court applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes a "strict liability" regime for compensation in cases of untoward incidents for *bona fide* passengers

It relied on the principle that the possession of a valid ticket creates a presumption of *bona fide* passenger status unless rebutted by the Railways

The court cited *Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar*, emphasizing that beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally to provide relief

and *Maya Devi v. Union of India*, which held that the location of a body at a distance from the tracks does not automatically rule out an accidental fall

The Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning flawed on several counts.

First, it held that under Section 124-A, a person intending to travel with a valid ticket is a *bona fide* passenger even if the journey has not formally commenced

Second, the Court noted that the Railways failed to provide direct evidence (such as testimony from the loco pilot or guard) to prove the "run-over" theory

The Court observed that the time of the ticket purchase (19:21 hrs) and the train’s arrival (19:34 hrs) aligned with the appellants' version

Relying on *Maya Devi*, the Court explained that the mere discovery of the body on a different track does not negate an accidental fall, as a victim may move before collapsing

It concluded that the Tribunal applied an "unduly rigid standard of proof" contrary to the Act's beneficial purpose

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within four weeks of the judgment

The Tribunal was directed to list the matter on 23.03.2026