1. Claim for compensation under the Railways Act following death due to an alleged fall from a running train — dispute over status as a bonafide passenger. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1788
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Rajni And Another – Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12538 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19549 of 2024)
Decided On : 08-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. N.k. Mody, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv. Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour, Adv. Ms. Aniya, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. N.k. Mody, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv. Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour, Adv. Ms. Aniya, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
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.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124-A - Death in railway accident - Claim for compensation dismissed by Tribunal, affirmed by High Court on grounds of failure to prove bona fide passenger status - Court held that evidence, including ticket verification, established prima facie proof of bona fide travel and shifted burden of proof to Railways - Mere absence of ticket at the time of death does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger when other evidence supports it. (Paras 9-15)
(B) Welfare Statutes - Standard of proof under welfare legislation differs from criminal law; operates on principles of preponderance of probabilities - Formal evidentiary lapses cannot thwart legitimate claims. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The claimants sought compensation due to the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik, alleged to have fallen from a train during overcrowding. Claim dismissed by the Tribunal for lack of ticket evidence. High Court accepted the incident as an ‘untoward incident’ but affirmed finding of non-bona fide passenger status.
Findings of Court:
Previous judgments establish that failure to recover a ticket does not negate claims if prima facie proof is provided. Claim verified by railway inquiry; therefore, sufficient to prove bona fide passenger status.
Issues: The main issues were the burden of proof regarding bona fide passenger status and the significance of reliance on ticket verification in compensation claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Establishing passenger status requires initial proof from claimants; once provided, burden shifts to Railways to disprove. High Court's findings affirmed that procedural lapses should not impede genuine claims under a welfare statute.
Result: Claim petition allowed in part, compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 awarded.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-recovery of a ticket and absence of a seizure memo negate bonafide passenger status or if prima facie evidence shifts the burden to the Railways. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court found that verified ticket records and claimant affidavits discharge the initial burden, and technical procedural lapses should not defeat claims under welfare legislation. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Official verification of ticket issuance constitutes prima facie proof of bonafide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden to the Railway Administration under the no-fault regime of Section 124-A. (Para 9 , 11 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed in part — previous orders set aside and compensation awarded to the claimants. (Para 16 )
6. How is the burden of proof distributed to establish that a deceased person was a bonafide passenger in a railway accident claim?
The initial burden lies with the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts. Once a credible prima facie foundation is laid, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the presumption. (Para 9 , 11 )
7. Does the failure to recover a physical ticket from the deceased's person automatically disqualify a claim for compensation?
No, the mere absence of a ticket is not ipso facto fatal. If the claimant provides prima facie proof of travel, the issue is decided based on the facts and attending circumstances. (Para 9 , 11 )
8. What is the applicable standard of proof for claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act?
Proceedings under Section 124-A are governed by the principles of preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as they are based on welfare legislation. (Para 13 , 14 )
9. Can a claim be dismissed due to the absence of a formal seizure memo or the non-examination of an investigating officer?
No, technical irregularities or procedural lapses in investigation should not defeat a legitimate claim under welfare legislation when other material evidence, such as official ticket verification, substantiates the claim. (Para 13 , 15 )
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 that sector. In absence of prima facie proof of bonafide travel, compensation under Section 124-A cannot be awarded. Hence, she has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have given our anxious consideration to the same. At the threshold, it is be noted that interference under Article 136 would not be warran
