Recovery of Platform Ticket Instead of Journey Ticket Negates Status as a Bona Fide Railway Passenger

The appellants challenged the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 30.05.2024, which dismissed their claim for compensation

The appellants alleged that on 13.03.2023, the deceased, Virendra Patel, fell from a running train near Harthala Railway Station due to heavy rush while traveling from Ludhiana to Gorakhpur on a valid ticket

During the jamatalashi (search), no journey ticket was recovered; however, a platform ticket from Ludhiana Railway Station was found

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the death caused by an "untoward incident"

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

2. Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased resulted from an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989

The Court primarily applied the definition of "untoward incident" and "passenger" under the Railways Act, 1989.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which establishes that while the initial burden to prove bona fide travel lies on the claimant (dischargable by an affidavit), this burden shifts to the Railways to rebut.

However, mere non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive proof, and the claim must be tested against the surrounding "attending facts"

The Court observed that while the deceased possessed a platform ticket from Ludhiana, the incident occurred at Harthala, approximately 461 km away.

Since a platform ticket is valid for only three hours, its possession—coupled with the lack of a journey ticket or proof of fare payment—raised serious doubts regarding lawful travel.

The Court held that the appellants failed to provide corroborative material to discharge their initial burden beyond a "bald assertion" in an affidavit.

Regarding the nature of the incident, the Court noted that the loco pilot’s statement and contemporaneous records placed the body "on the track" rather than alongside it, which contradicted the version of an accidental fall from a running train.

The Court concluded that since the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger was not established, the question of whether the event constituted an "untoward incident" became secondary and did not warrant interference.

The Court held that the principles in Rina Devi do not grant automatic success in every case of non-recovery of a ticket if the facts suggest otherwise.

The appeal was dismissed.