Verified journey tickets and contemporaneous records establish bona fide passenger status despite non-recovery at the accident site.

On December 23, 2017, the appellant was traveling from Gurgaon to Delhi via the Janta Express.

Upon reaching Patel Nagar Railway Station, he alighted to fetch water and sustained grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of both legs while attempting to re-board the moving train.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (the "Tribunal") dismissed the appellant’s claim for compensation on July 9, 2019, despite finding the event was an "untoward incident".

The dismissal was primarily based on the non-recovery of a journey ticket at the spot and the findings of the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report, which suggested the appellant was not a bona fide passenger.

The appellant challenged this, asserting the ticket had been verified by the Railways and recorded in contemporaneous documents.

1. Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident, notwithstanding the non-recovery of a physical ticket from his person at the scene.

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an "untoward incident" to include an accidental fall from a train.

The court further applied the evidentiary principle that once foundational facts regarding an incident and the existence of a verified ticket are established, the onus of proof shifts to the Railways to demonstrate the passenger was not bona fide.

The court relied on the principle that internal enquiry reports, such as DRM reports, do not constitute substantive evidence and cannot override contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The Court observed that the Tribunal's finding of an "untoward incident" had attained finality, as it was supported by the General Diary entry, station master memo, and medical records describing a "railway track accident".

On the issue of bona fide travel, the Court noted that a journey ticket (No. 31139829) had been identified, verified by the Railway authorities, and taken into custody via a seizure memo (fard) during investigation.

The Court held that the Railways failed to discharge their burden of proof, as they produced no evidence of ticketless travel—such as penalty proceedings—to counter the verified ticket.

The Court rejected the DRM report’s conclusions, noting they were based on inferences of negligence rather than direct evidence and could not supersede contemporaneous records.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and allowed the appeal.

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal with directions to assess the quantum of compensation and ensure disbursement within two months.