Recovery of valid ticket shifts burden to Railways to disprove bona fide passenger status.

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the Tribunal’s dismissal of their claim on 27.09.2018.

On 31.10.2017, the deceased, Shadab Khan, was traveling from Hapur to Delhi with a valid second-class ticket.

Between Delhi-Shahdara and Delhi Railway Station, he allegedly fell from the running train and died on the spot.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) dismissed the claim, ruling that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the event did not constitute an "untoward incident".

The appellants also sought condonation of a 316-day delay in filing the appeal, citing economic hardship.

1. Whether the delay of 316 days in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the appellants' economic status.

2. Whether the death of the deceased qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

The Court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incident" and establish the principle of strict liability for the Railways, regardless of passenger negligence.

It relied on Mohsina v. Union of India regarding the condonation of delay for claimants from economically weaker sections.

Further, it applied the precedent in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, which clarifies that accidental falls from a train (including while boarding/alighting) constitute an untoward incident.

Finally, the Court invoked the evidentiary standard from Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that the recovery of a ticket shifts the burden of proof to the Railways to disprove bona fide passenger status.

Regarding the delay, the Court observed that the appellants' financial incapacity constituted "sufficient cause," following the beneficial nature of the legislation.

On the merits, the Court found the RCT’s dismissal lacked evidentiary support.

While the Tribunal claimed there were no eyewitnesses, the Court noted that the presence of the body on line No. 4 and the Station Master’s memo established the incident occurred during railway operations.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument of negligence (unauthorized track crossing), noting that under Section 124-A, negligence is irrelevant unless a statutory exception like suicide or self-inflicted injury is proven, which the Railways failed to do.

Regarding the status of the deceased, a valid journey ticket was recovered during jamatalashi and confirmed by the DRM report.

Under the Rina Devi principle, this recovery created a presumption of bona fide travel that the respondent failed to rebut with cogent evidence.

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an "untoward incident".

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation amount and directed the authorities to disburse it within two months of the order.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 05.05.2026.