Absence of Passenger Ticket Does Not Negate Compensation Claims for Untoward Incidents: Rajasthan High Court

In a significant ruling concerning the rights of victims in railway accidents, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the mere absence of a journey ticket does not automatically disqualify a claimant from seeking compensation for an untoward incident. The court set aside an order by the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), emphasizing that the burden of proof regarding the status of a passenger must be evaluated more comprehensively.

The Incident: A Tragic Journey

The legal battle originated from a 2013 tragedy involving the son of the appellant, Smt. Gulab Devi. According to the petition, the deceased was traveling from Jaipur to Bhankri on a passenger train when he reportedly fell near the Banganga Bridge due to a sudden jerk. The resulting injuries proved fatal. Following the incident, Smt. Gulab Devi filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 , seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 for the loss of her son.

The Legal Deadlock: Ticketless Trauma

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) initially rejected the claim on a technicality: as no ticket was found on the person of the deceased during the inquest, the tribunal concluded he was not a "bona fide passenger." Furthermore, the RCT took note of the horrific condition of the body, which had been split into two parts, and suggested that the incident was likely a "run-over" case rather than a fall from a train, thereby absolving the railway of liability.

The Legal Precedent: Why Rina Devi Matters

During the appeal, the Rajasthan High Court invoked the landmark Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (2019) . Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that the absence of a ticket does not inherently invalidate a claim.

"Mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger," the Supreme Court had held. Justice Dhand noted that the initial burden of proof rests with the claimant, but once supported by evidence or affidavits, the burden shifts to the railway authorities to disprove the nature of the passenger's travel.

Key Observations

The High Court underscored the following principles in its decision:

• "Mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive... However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger."
• "The presumption lies with the Railway Authorities whenever any untoward incident occurs, within the Railway premises or on any railway track, unless any evidence, otherwise, is available."
• "In the instant case, no such evidence has been brought on record by the railway authorities that the deceased has committed suicide or he has been struck down by another train."

The High Court’s Mandate

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand found the RCT’s initial rejection to be erroneous. The High Court has quashed the judgment dated 10.08.2018 and remanded the matter back to the RCT, directing a fresh adjudication based on all available evidence. Recognizing the lengthy delay—as the incident dates back to 2013—the Court has ordered the tribunal to expedite the proceedings, with both parties instructed to appear before the RCT on February 16, 2026.

Implications for Future Claimants

This ruling serves as a vital reminder that technological and bureaucratic hurdles should not obstruct the path to justice for accident victims. By reinforcing the Rina Devi precedent, the Rajasthan High Court has ensured that railway authorities cannot rely solely on the absence of a physical ticket to dismiss claims, compelling the tribunal to engage in a more thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of each individual tragedy.