The production of a valid ticket shifts the burden to the transport operator to disprove the bona fide status of a passenger. Allegations of contributory negligence do not defeat a claim for compensation arising from an 'untoward incident' involving a railway journey.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c) and 124-A - Untoward incident - Death of passenger - Compensation claim - Initial burden to prove 'bona fide passenger' status is discharged upon production of a valid journey ticket - Once ticket is produced, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove statutory exceptions such as suicide or self-inflicted injury. (Paras 12, 16)

(B) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124-A - Proviso - Negligence - A claim for compensation in an untoward incident cannot be defeated merely on the ground of the victim's alleged negligence - The expression 'accidental falling of a passenger' requires a liberal interpretation. (Paras 13, 14)

(C) Evidence - Appraisal by Tribunal - Tribunals must refrain from selective reliance on inquiry reports while ignoring contemporaneous official evidence - Findings on 'mode of occurrence' cannot be based on mere assumptions in the absence of direct evidence. (Paras 4, 9, 17)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the dismissal of a claim petition arising from the death of a passenger. The deceased was found on the track near railway premises after having commenced a journey with a valid ticket. The claims tribunal had rejected the application, citing a lack of evidence regarding the cause of death and attributing it to the negligence of the deceased.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the official records clearly established it as a railway-related occurrence. Since a valid ticket was recovered and accepted as genuine, the burden of proof shifted to the respondent to substantiate any statutory exceptions, which it failed to do. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind compensation provisions for railway accidents/untoward incidents is remedial and must be interpreted liberally.

Issues: The main issues were whether the death constituted an 'untoward incident' under the statutes and whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the occurrence.

Ratio Decidendi: An accidental fall or run-over occurring within railway premises where a valid ticket is in possession of the deceased qualifies as an 'untoward incident,' entitling the survivors to compensation. Negligence of the passenger is not a valid ground for rejecting the claim under the applicable statutory provisions.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; the matter was remanded to the tribunal for computation and disbursement of compensation.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and factual background of the accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. competing assertions regarding the cause of death and passenger status. (Para 4 , 5)
3. what constitutes an untoward incident under the railways act? (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. standard of proof for establishing status as a bona fide passenger. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. remand of matter to the tribunal for compensation assessment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 02.11.2017, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/20/2017.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the appellant was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the incident come within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 189 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. The brief facts, as stated in the claim application, are that on 22.10.2016, one Sanjay Malik (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had proceeded from Ghaziabad Railway Station for travelling towards Sadar Bazaar, Delhi after purchasing a valid journey ticket. It was the appellants’ case that during the course of the said journey, due to a sudden jerk and jolt, the deceased accidentally fell from the train near Ghaziabad Railway Station, resulting in fatal injuries, due to which he died on the spot.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment, contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the contemporaneous material available on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal selectively relied upon portions of the DRM/RPF inquiry while completely ignoring the Station Master memo, jamatalashi proceedings, post-mortem report and the admitted recovery and verification of a valid railway ticket from the person of the deceased. It is further contended that the entire railway inquiry proceeds merely on assumptions without any direct evidence whatsoever establishing trespass, suicide, self-inflicted injury or any criminal act attributable to the deceased.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that since no eyewitness to the occurrence was available, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the deceased became victim of his own negligence and the appellants failed to establish occurrence of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Act.

6. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The first question which requires consideration is whether the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident”.

8. The official record itself establishes that the occurrence was a railway accident connected with railway movement within the railway premises. The Station Master Memo dated 22.10.2016 specifically records that information was received from the driver of SBJ E-Box Goods Train through walkie-talkie that one person had been run over near Delhi End Starter at Line no. 7. Pursuant thereto, GRP and RPF officials immediately reached the spot and initiated proceedings. The inquest proceedings prepared by GRP Ghaziabad further record that the body of the deceased was found between Main Line No. 7 near Pole Nos. 19/20A-19/22 within railway limits.

9. However, significantly, none of the railway witnesses or inquiry proceedings establish how exactly the deceased came upon the railway track, as alleged. No eyewitness whatsoever was produced by the Railways to establish that the deceased was crossing the track, walking negligently upon the railway line or had intentionally entered the track area. In fact, the report prepared by the Officer-In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 915

The production of a valid ticket shifts the burden to the transport operator to disprove the bona fide status of a passenger. Allegations of contributory negligence do not defeat a claim for compensation arising from an 'untoward incident' involving a railway journey.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis