Unrebutted claimant testimony can establish bona fide passenger status despite non-recovery of the journey ticket.

On 08.02.2017, the appellant boarded a passenger train at Okhla Railway Station for Palwal after allegedly purchasing a valid journey ticket. At Tughlakabad Railway Station, he alighted to obtain water; when the train started moving, he attempted to re-board it, fell from the train, and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, and his left leg was subsequently amputated below the knee. His bag, containing clothes and allegedly the journey ticket, was lost in the incident.

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the appellant had fallen while attempting to board the train and that the occurrence constituted an “untoward incident”, but dismissed his compensation claim on the ground that he had failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger.

The appellant challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation despite non-recovery of the journey ticket.

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the assumption that the appellant would not have kept a short-distance journey ticket in his lost bag.

Whether the matter was required to be remanded to the Tribunal for determination of the compensation payable.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, along with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 relating to compensation for an “untoward incident” and the requirement that the claimant be a bona fide passenger.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that mere absence or non-recovery of a ticket from an injured or deceased person does not by itself negate bona fide passenger status; the claimant may discharge the initial burden by filing an affidavit or giving a categorical account of having purchased a ticket, following which the burden shifts to the Railways.

The Court also relied on Raj Kumar v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3242, which applied Rina Devi to an injury claim and held that an unrebutted assertion of having purchased a valid ticket may suffice to discharge the claimant’s initial burden.

The finding that the appellant had fallen from the train while attempting to board it, and that the occurrence was an “untoward incident”, had not been challenged by the Railways and therefore attained finality.

The surviving question was whether he was travelling as a bona fide passenger. The appellant consistently stated in his testimony and in the contemporaneous GRP record that he had purchased a ₹15 ticket from Okhla to Palwal and had kept it in the bag that was lost during the incident. His explanation that he kept the ticket in the bag to avoid losing it was not inherently improbable.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court held that the appellant had discharged the initial burden of establishing bona fide passenger status. Since the Railways led no cogent or independent evidence proving that he was travelling without a ticket, the Tribunal’s reliance on the non-recovery of the ticket and its own assumption regarding where a passenger would keep a short-distance ticket was unsustainable.

The impugned judgment dated 22.11.2018 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law.

The concerned authorities were directed to disburse the compensation within two months of receiving the order, and the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21.09.2026.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.