1. Claim for compensation for death from alleged fall from train — Bona fide passenger status disputed. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Del) 1103
2026 DHC 8823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
Anita Devi - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
FAO 15 OF 2016
Decided On : 06-10-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.Rajan Sood, Ms. Megha Sood Ms. Ashima Sood, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC with Mr. Anmol Ghai and Mr. Rudra Paliwal, GPs.
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajan Sood, Megha Sood, Ashima Sood
For the Respondents: Kushagra Kumar, Anmol Ghai, Rudra Paliwal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajan Sood, Megha Sood, Ashima Sood
For the Respondents: Kushagra Kumar, Anmol Ghai, Rudra Paliwal
Recovery of a valid ticket establishes bona fide passenger status regardless of disputes over the accident's manner. Liability for 'untoward incidents' is strict, and a 'run-over' theory cannot be accepted based solely on injuries without corroborative evidence, applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23; Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A - Compensation for death of passenger - Bona fide passenger status - Recovery of ticket - Untoward incident - Accidental fall vs. run-over - Recovery of valid journey ticket from person of deceased is sufficient to establish bona fide passenger status - Dispute regarding manner of accident does not render the recovered ticket irrelevant for determining status - Liability under Section 124-A is strict and claimant is not required to prove the incident in the manner of a criminal trial - Theory of deceased being run over cannot be accepted merely on the basis of nature of injuries or location of body without eyewitness or material identifying the train - Case of accidental fall accepted on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 11)
(B) Evidence - Proof in compensation claims - The standard of proof in claims for compensation under the Railways Act is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Appeal filed against the dismissal of a claim seeking compensation for the death of a passenger who allegedly fell from a crowded train due to a sudden jerk. A valid journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. The tribunal had dismissed the claim, holding that the recovery of the ticket did not establish that the deceased actually travelled by the train or suffered an accidental fall.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the recovery of the ticket, as recorded in inquest proceedings, established the deceased as a bona fide passenger. It further found that the theory of the deceased being run over while crossing the track was not supported by any evidence, such as loco-pilot or eyewitness statements, and therefore the case of an accidental fall was accepted.
Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the death constituted an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of a valid ticket is strong evidence of bona fide passenger status, and the burden shifts to the railways to rebut this with cogent evidence. In the absence of evidence proving the passenger was crossing the track, an inference of being run over based solely on injuries is insufficient; the benefit of the beneficial legislation is given based on the preponderance of probabilities.
Result: Appeal allowed and matter remanded back to the Tribunal for assessment of compensation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- torts
- evidence
Table of Contents
2. Claimant relied on recovered ticket; Railway argued death was from being run over crossing track. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Recovery of ticket establishes bona fide passenger status; injury nature alone cannot prove run-over. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Recovered ticket shifts burden to Railways; accidental fall proven on preponderance of probabilities. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for compensation assessment. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased establish bona fide passenger status?
Yes. Recovery of a valid ticket from the deceased is strong evidence of bona fide passenger status, shifting the burden to Railways to rebut it. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Can an accidental fall from a train be rejected based solely on the nature of injuries?
No. The nature of injuries alone, without eyewitness or other material, cannot establish a run-over theory to reject an accidental fall claim. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. What is the standard of proof for an untoward incident claim under the Railways Act?
The standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; liability under Section 124-A is strict. (Para 6 , 11 )
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 17.03.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/168/2013, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation on account of death of her mother, Renu Devi (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), came to be dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the claim application was filed in respect of an incident dated 12.06.2013 involving the deceased, who was stated to have been travelling from New Delhi to Muzaffarpur Jn., in the general compartment of Swatantrata Senani Express. The case of the appellant was that the deceased, on account of a sudden jerk and pushing by other passengers in the crowded compartment, fell from the slowly moving train when it reached Kanchosi Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was carrying a valid journey ticket which was recovered from her person.
3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as AW-1 and relied upon, inter alia, the Station Master’s memo, post-mortem report, journey ticket and other documents. The respondent, on the other hand, relied upon the DRM report and its enclosures. The Tribunal, while considering the issues relating to bona fide passenger status and the occurrence of an “untoward incident”, noticed that the journey ticket had been recovered from the deceased. However, it proceeded to hold that the recovery of the ticket, even if accepted, did not establish that the deceased had actually travelled by the train or that she had suffered an accidental fall therefrom and consequently, dismissed the claim.
4. Before this Court, Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in treating the recovery of the journey ticket as of no consequence merely because the manner in which the deceased sustained the injuries was in dispute. It is submitted that a valid journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and the recovery is specifically reflected in the record. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent failed to lead any cogent evidence and that the alternative theory of the deceased having been run over while crossing the track is not supported by either any eyewitness or any material identifying the train which allegedly caused the run-over.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while objecting to the aforesaid submissions, contended that mere recovery of a ticket does not establish that the deceased had boarded the particular train or that she had fallen from it. Learned counsel further submits that the manner of occurrence as well as the nature of the injuries, coupled with the inquest and other investigation material, supports the conclusion that the deceased was run over.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, the first question which arises is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The legal position in this regard is well settled. Mere absence or non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive against the claimant. The Supreme Court has held that the initial burden can be discharged by placing the relevant facts and attending circumstances on record, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways to rebut the same by cogent evidence. (Ref: “ Union of India v. Rina Devi ”, ((2019) 3 SCC 572)) The same principle has subsequently been reiterated in “ Lata v. Union of India ”, (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350) and “Sukhbhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India”, (2026 INSC 1056).
7. In the present case, there is, however, considerably more than what ordinarily arises in a case where the ticket is not recovered. The ticket bearing No. X-56187454 was actually recovered from the person of the deceased and the factum of such recovery is recorded in the
