In claims under welfare legislation, once a claimant establishes foundational facts like ticket purchase and the occurrence of an incident, the burden shifts to the railway authorities to prove statutory exceptions. Evidence such as medical reports and eyewitness testimony suffices to establish a claim, even absent official railway diary entries.

Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c) and 124-A - Untoward incident - Death in railway accident - Bona fide passenger status - Appellants challenged dismissal of claim application based on lack of proof of bona fide passenger status and occurrence of untoward incident - The beneficial nature of legislation requires a liberal construction - Absence of concurrent railway record like station diary entry cannot override consistent material evidence regarding accidental fall from moving train - When initial burden is discharged by claimants through oral and documentary evidence, onus shifts to the respondent to prove exceptions under the Act - Hand-written modifications on travel documents do not invalidate them when issuance is admitted by clerk and incident occurs within the specified route. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16)

(B) Evidence Act - Burden of proof - Initial burden on claimant to prove foundational facts is satisfied by filing affidavits and providing evidence - Once discharged, the burden shifts to the railway administration to prove exceptions such as self-inflicted injury, criminal act, or intoxication. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellants filed an appeal against the dismissal of their claim for compensation following the death of a family member who allegedly fell from a moving train. The railway tribunal had rejected the claim alleging the deceased was not a bona fide passenger due to handwritten alterations on the ticket and the lack of official station records concerning the incident.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the testimony of the eyewitness, who was traveling with the deceased, and the admitted issuance of tickets by the booking clerk proved the passenger's bona fide status. The Court further observed that the medical records supported the occurrence of a railway accident. The absence of official railway station entries does not negate claims supported by consistent evidence in beneficial legislation.

Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the death occurred due to an untoward incident as defined under the relevant law.

Ratio Decidendi: Beneficial legislation mandates a liberal interpretation of evidence. Once the claimants provide foundational proof of a journey and the occurrence of an injury in a railway environment, the burden shifts to the authorities to establish statutory exceptions. Oral testimony corroborated by post-mortem findings and ticket issuance outweighs the absence of contemporaneous official entries.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment set aside and matter remanded back for computation of compensation.

Table of Content
1. factual overview of the deceased's fatal rail journey. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respective arguments concerning the validity of the claim. (Para 4 , 5)
3. analysis of evidentiary standards for bona fide passengers. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
4. application of burden-shifting precedents and witness testimony. (Para 13 , 15)
5. court decision setting aside order and remanding matter. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

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 05.01.2026, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/49/2025.

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 of the case, as set up before the Tribunal, are that on 12.10.2024, one Sh. Ravindra Kumar @ Neetu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling along with his younger son and his brother-in-law, Deshpal Singh, from Gokulpur Saboli to Shamli on the strength of valid journey tickets for the said travel. During the course of the journey, due to heavy crowding and pushing inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the moving train near Gotra Halt and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was initially taken to CHC Khekra for treatment and was thereafter shifted to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where he ultimately succumbed to his injuries.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled legal principles and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and rejected the claim on mere conjectures. Learned counsel submits that the evidence brought on record by the appellants was sufficient to establish both the bona fide status of the deceased as well as the occurrence of an “untoward incident” on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 527. and Rajni & Ors. v. Union of India, (2025) INSC 1201.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that no railway official received any information regarding the alleged incident and therefore no Station Diary entry or railway record relating to the incident came into existence. Learned counsel submits that the absence of any contemporaneous railway record casts serious doubt on the story set up by the appellants. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.

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

7. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether his death occurred in an “untoward incident”.

8. Besides the deposition of AW-2, namely Deshpal Singh, who was travelling along with the deceased, the material placed on record shows that Satyendra Singh (CW-1), the booking clerk examined before the Tribunal admitted that the tickets in question had in fact been sold from Gokulpur Saboli railway station on the relevant date. The dispute raised by the respondent was confined only to the handwritten insertion of the destination “Shamli” appearing on the face of the ticket. However, even according to the respondent, the ticket stood issued for travel from Gokulpur Saboli to Gujran Balwa. Significantly, the alleged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 673

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis