Verified journey ticket and contemporaneous railway records sufficiently establish bona fide passenger status and an untoward incident.

The appellant, an illiterate and financially distressed mother, sought condonation of a 299-day delay in filing an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of her compensation claim.

The Tribunal had rejected the claim concerning the death of her son, Ramu, holding that he was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that his death did not result from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The deceased had allegedly been travelling with his younger brother, Shyam, on Train No. 14056 and fell from the moving train after being pushed by co-passengers.

A journey ticket was recovered from his pocket during the inquest and later verified by the Railway authorities.

The Guard of the train informed the Deputy Station Superintendent, Shikohabad, that a passenger had fallen from the train and had been cut.

The Tribunal nevertheless relied on the timing of the ticket and the train’s movement records to doubt the claim.

The appeal was maintainable under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The Court applied the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 concerning compensation for death caused by an “untoward incident” and the requirement that the deceased be a bona fide passenger.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status lies on the claimant, but it may be discharged through relevant facts and circumstances; this principle was also reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350.

The Court further relied on the beneficial nature of railway compensation legislation and adopted a liberal approach, referring to Mohsina v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10003, and Reshma v. Union of India, FAO 25/2022, for condonation of delay.

In relation to the ticket’s timing, the Court relied on Kari Devi & Ors. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5641, which gave primacy to contemporaneous railway records over unsupported inferences.

The Court found sufficient cause for the delay because the appellant was illiterate, economically vulnerable, and suffering severe mental, physical, social, and financial hardship after her son’s death; the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate.

The delay was therefore condoned in light of the beneficial character of the legislation and the liberal approach adopted in comparable cases.

On the merits, recovery of the journey ticket from the deceased’s pocket, its verification by the Railway authorities, and Shyam’s statement that he had travelled with the deceased together discharged the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status.

Shyam’s testimony was corroborated by his participation in the inquest and identification of the body, and could not be rejected merely because his presence was not mentioned in the claim application.

The contemporaneous memo recording the Guard’s communication that a passenger had fallen from Train No. 14056 supported the occurrence of an untoward incident.

The earlier purchase of the ticket did not prove that the deceased failed to board the train, and the absence of extra detention at Shikohabad could not, by itself, exclude a fall from the moving train.

The Tribunal’s contrary conclusions were based on conjecture rather than cogent evidence.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 6 April 2018 and the review order dated 19 September 2018, holding that the evidence sufficiently established the deceased’s bona fide passenger status and supported the occurrence of an untoward incident.

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to determine the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the judgment.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21 September 2026.