Recovery of a valid MST alone does not establish bona fide passenger status or an untoward incident.

The appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 May 2025 dismissing their claim in OA/II(u)/DLI/187/2024 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The deceased, Mohit Sharma, possessed a Monthly Season Ticket (MST) valid from 26 September 2023 to 25 October 2023 for the relevant route.

On 27 September 2023, he allegedly reached New Ghaziabad Railway Station with his co-passenger, Vishal Sharma, and waited for the Shalimar Express.

When Train No. 18477, Kalinga Utkal Express, passed through Platform No. 1, the deceased allegedly mistook it for the Shalimar Express and attempted to board it amid the rush, fell between the train and the platform, and died.

The MST was reportedly recovered during the deceased’s personal search.

The appellants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an accidental fall while attempting to board a train, constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Union of India disputed the claim, asserting that Kalinga Utkal Express had no scheduled stoppage at New Ghaziabad and that contemporaneous records indicated that the deceased came into the grip of, or was struck by, the train rather than falling while boarding.

Whether recovery of a valid MST, together with the claimants’ evidence, established that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger of the train in question.

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an accidental fall from a passenger train so as to constitute an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim warranted interference under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

It further applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, under which an accidental fall from a passenger-carrying train may constitute an “untoward incident”.

The Court held that although non-recovery of a journey ticket is not conclusive against a claimant, the claimant must nevertheless establish, through evidence and surrounding circumstances, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that the principle concerning non-recovery of a ticket does not dispense with the foundational requirement of proving bona fide passenger status.

A valid MST, by itself, does not establish that the deceased was travelling in the particular train involved in the incident.

The Court found that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving both bona fide passenger status and an accidental fall from the train.

Although the MST was valid for the relevant period and route, it did not establish that the deceased was travelling in Kalinga Utkal Express.

The testimony of Vishal Sharma was considered unreliable because his initial police statement and the panchnama stated that the deceased came into the grip of the train, whereas his later testimony introduced the account that the deceased had attempted to board the train after mistaking it for the Shalimar Express.

The Court also noted that Vishal Sharma was himself a panch witness to the panchnama, which did not record any attempt by the deceased to board or deboard the train.

The contemporaneous Station Master’s report and roznamcha recorded that the deceased had come into contact with Train No. 18477 and that his body was lying between the platform and the track; the roznamcha also recorded the version that he had been walking on the track with earphones plugged in when the train struck him.

Further, the evidence showed that both the deceased and Vishal Sharma knew that Kalinga Utkal Express did not stop at New Ghaziabad and ordinarily travelled by the Shalimar Express.

In light of these circumstances, the Court rejected the later narrative of mistaken identity and attempted boarding as an afterthought.

Since the evidence indicated that the deceased came into the grip of the train, rather than accidentally falling from a passenger train, the statutory requirement of an “untoward incident” was not satisfied.

The Court found no error warranting interference with the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.