Verified ticket and surrounding circumstances establish bona fide passenger status despite inconsistent panchnama copies.

On 7 June 2017, Mintu was travelling from Gorakhpur to New Delhi by an express train on the basis of journey ticket No. 95389252.

It was alleged that, due to heavy overcrowding, he was standing near the compartment door and fell from the moving train near Tundla Railway Station after a sudden jerk and the thrust of co-passengers.

His dead body was subsequently found near the Down Starter Signal of Mitawali Station, specifically near Point No. 202 on the Down Loop Line.

The appellant relied on the journey ticket, its verification by the Railway authorities, and a panchnama which, in one version, recorded recovery of the ticket from the deceased’s purse.

The Railway relied on another version of the panchnama and the Investigating Officer’s final report, neither of which mentioned recovery of the ticket.

The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim in O.A. No. OA(IIu)/203/2017 by judgment dated 23 January 2019, principally disbelieving the ticket and concluding that the location of the body was inconsistent with a fall from the train in question.

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

The Court separately condoned the 210-day delay in filing the appeal.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger for the purposes of a claim under the Railways Act, 1989, notwithstanding the discrepancy between the two versions of the panchnama and the omission of the ticket from the Investigating Officer’s final report?

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an accidental fall from a passenger train, thereby constituting an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the appeal was liable to be entertained after condonation of the 210-day delay in filing it?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 concerning appeals from Tribunal decisions, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 concerning “untoward incidents” and statutory compensation.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, the Court held that the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status lies on the claimant but may be discharged through relevant facts and circumstances.

Under Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Section 124-A embodies strict or no-fault liability, and negligence by the passenger does not defeat a claim where the occurrence otherwise falls within the statutory definition; the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” must receive a liberal interpretation consistent with the beneficial object of the legislation.

The Court also applied the principle that delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown, particularly having regard to the beneficial nature of the legislation and the appellant’s economic circumstances.

The Court held that the appellant had produced more than a bare assertion of ticket purchase: a journey ticket bearing a specific number had been produced, its particulars had been verified by the Railways, and one contemporaneous version of the panchnama recorded recovery of the ticket from the deceased.

Although the conflicting panchnama and the omission from the final report warranted scrutiny, they did not establish that the ticket was forged, fabricated, or unrelated to the deceased.

The Tribunal therefore erred in treating the discrepancy as conclusive instead of assessing it cumulatively with the verified ticket and other evidence.

As to the occurrence, the Tribunal relied principally on the fact that the body was found on the Down Loop Line whereas the train was travelling on the Up line.

However, there was no evidence establishing the precise trajectory of a person falling from a moving train or proving that the deceased could not have landed at the recorded location.

The finding in the DRM Report regarding negligence was insufficient to defeat the claim under the strict-liability scheme of Section 124-A, and there was no finding of suicide, self-inflicted injury, or any other statutory exception.

In the cumulative circumstances—including the verified ticket, fatal ante-mortem injuries at railway premises, and absence of an established alternative cause—the Court found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the incident was an accidental fall constituting an untoward incident.

On merits, it set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 23 January 2019, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and concluded that his death resulted from an untoward incident under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement within two months of receipt of the order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 18 September 2026.