Recovery of a valid ticket from the deceased establishes bona fide passenger status and presumes an untoward incident.

The appellant’s son, Ved Prakash, allegedly died on 15.02.2020 after accidentally falling from an EMU passenger train between Pyala and Ballabgarh Railway Stations

He had purchased a valid ticket from Asaoti to Faridabad New Town

His body was discovered on 16.02.2020 between the third and fourth railway lines

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on 13.01.2022, asserting the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death was not an "untoward incident," speculating that he might have been run over while trespassing or answering the call of nature

The appellant challenged this before the High Court, along with an application for condonation of a 255-day delay

1. Whether the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned given the appellant's economic status?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act?

3. Whether the incident constitutes an "untoward incident" (accidental fall) as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act?

The Court applied Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" and establish strict liability for compensation regardless of fault

It emphasized that this is beneficial and social welfare legislation requiring a liberal, justice-oriented approach

For the condonation of delay, the court followed Mohsina v. Union of India, which permits a liberal approach for claimants from economically weaker sections

Regarding the burden of proof for bona fide passengers, the court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, which holds that once a ticket is found on the body, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove a statutory exception

It further cited Sh. Surendra Prasad Verma v. Union of India to establish that delayed discovery of a body does not negate an accidental fall

The Court first condoned the delay, noting the appellant's poverty and the social-welfare nature of the Act

On merits, the Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning speculative and unsupported by evidence. It noted that a genuine ticket was recovered during jamatalashi and verified by the DRM report, creating a presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger which the Railways failed to rebut

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s "trespassing" theory, noting that the keyman who found the body did not report any trespassing, and the post-mortem report specifically attributed the death to a "railway accident" without suggesting suicide or criminal acts

The Court clarified that the location of the body in a "block section" and the delayed discovery (due to night hours) are not determinative factors to disprove an accidental fall from a running train

The High Court condoned the 255-day delay and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within two months of its first listing on 28.05.2026