The burden of proof for bona fide passenger status in railway accident claims shifts to the Railways upon credible evidence from the claimants, regardless of ticket recovery or procedural irregularities.

JUDGMENT

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3451 of 2023. By the said order, the High Court affirmed the dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation on account of the death of late Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik in an alleged railway accident.

3. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as under: On 19.05.2017, the deceased is stated to have purchased a second-class ticket at Indore Railway Junction for travel to Ujjain by train no. 12465, Ranthambore Express. It is alleged that due to overcrowding, he was pushed out of the running train near pole no. 15/21, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Narwar, District Ujjain, resulting in fatal head injuries. An inquest under Section 174 CrPC was registered and was closed as an accidental fall. Post-mortem report opined death due to profuse haemorrhage and shock consequent to head injury.

4. The appellants, being the widow and minor son of the deceased, filed Claim Case No. OA-IIU/BPL/96/2019 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 16.01.2023, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased was a bonafide passenger. No ticket was recovered from his person or belongings, and the photocopy of tickets (Annexure A/7) was considered doubtful as there was no seizure memo and the investigating officer was not examined. The Tribunal also noticed inconsistencies in the record regarding the place of incident.

5. The appellants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3451 of 2023 before the High Court. While accepting that the incident constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , the High Court nonetheless concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on 15.05.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that High Court had erred in refusing compensation despite holding the incident to be an ‘untoward incident’. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi v. Union of India , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 642 : 2023 Supreme(SC) 528 to contend that mere non-recovery of ticket is not fatal, and once prima facie proof is given, the burden shifts on the Railways to disprove the said fact. It was argued that deceased had indeed purchased ticket no. L10274210 at 05:36 hours on the date of incident, as reflected in records. Further, the failure of the investigating officer to prepare a seizure memo ought not to prejudice the dependants; and on a busy corridor such as Indore–Ujjain, the Railways could have produced “best evidence” like CCTV, guard logs, or alarm-chain records. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the appeal.

7. Per contra, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the concurrent findings. It is submitted that no cogent primary evidence exists to establish that deceased was holding a valid ticket for the fateful journey. The photocopy produced (Annexure A/7) was neither recovered at the spot nor proved through a seizure memo or testimony of witness establish that deceased had purchased the ticket; the concerned officer was not examined; and there is no contemporaneous record of an alarm or report of a fall from the running train in tha