Verified ticket establishes bona fide passenger status; hearsay cannot prove intentional jumping to exclude strict liability.

On 06.06.2024, the deceased, Sanju Yadav, purchased a journey ticket from Tundla to Bharthana

Upon reaching Bharthana station, she was unable to deboard due to heavy rush and allegedly fell from the moving train shortly after, sustaining fatal injuries

The Railway Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal") dismissed the appellants' claim on 30.10.2025, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi (search of the body) and that the incident was not an "untoward incident" as she had allegedly "jumped" from the train

The appellants challenged this, producing a verified ticket subsequently found in the deceased's belongings

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of the journey ticket during the initial police search?

2. Whether the death of the deceased, resulting from an alleged jump from a moving train based on hearsay evidence, constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

The Court primarily applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes the principle of strict liability for "untoward incidents," regardless of fault, unless specific statutory exceptions apply

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which holds that once a valid journey ticket is produced and verified, a presumption of bona fide travel arises in favor of the passenger

The Court cited Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, emphasizing that Section 124-A is a beneficial provision that must be interpreted liberally to provide relief to victims

The Court found that the Tribunal’s rejection of the bona fide passenger status was unsustainable because the ticket, though not found during jamatalashi, was subsequently produced by the father and verified as valid by the Railway authorities

Under the Rina Devi precedent, this shifted the burden to the Railways to prove the passenger was not bona fide, which they failed to do

Regarding the nature of the incident, the Court observed that the Respondent’s claim that the deceased "jumped" was based entirely on the hearsay statement of an unidentified passenger recorded by an RPF official

Since no eyewitness was examined and no medical evidence supported a deliberate act, the Court held that the "jumping" theory was speculative

Consequently, the incident was categorized as an accidental fall, falling squarely within the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2)

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and her death resulted from an untoward incident

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the quantum of compensation and ensure disbursement to the appellants within four weeks

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 06.04.2026