The absence of a ticket does not disqualify a claimant from being a bona fide passenger if an affidavit is filed, shifting the burden to the Railways. Compensation for untoward incidents is governed by the preponderance of probabilities, not strict criminal standards of proof.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act challenging the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claim Tribunal Ahmedabad in O.A.No.2015 / 0339 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal discussed the claim of an amount for compensation towards injuries sustained by the claimant.

2. The facts in nutshell are that on 07.01.2015, the claimant was travelling from Bavla to Dholka in Train No.52939 and the said train, according to claimant, when he entered into the compartment of train, because of full of crown, he stood near door passages and when train about to reach Bavla passing through near Km.52/0-1 at Bavla, Railway station, his leg slipped and he fell down from the train at Point No.107, as a consequence of which he sustained multiple injuries and lost his fingners of leg and other minor injures on his person. Initially, he was treated at Bavla Health Center and thereafter had been taken to VS Hospital for further treatment.

3. The learned Tribunal, after permitting both the parties to lead the evidence, was pleased to dismiss the claim petition firstly on the ground that claimatn was travelling without ticket and secondly he attempted to commit sucide as per the terstimony of witness Javsingh Katara, Pointman at Bawla, which attributed to sustain injuries.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ratin Raval for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Amin for the Union of India.

5. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Raval that the affidavit is filed by the appellant to submit that he has purchased the ticket but he has lost during transit and secondly he would submit that concept of of ‘negligence’ has not placed in an accident which takes place within the railway precincts and it is only required to consider that whether the untoward incident has happened or not.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim of the claimants.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Amin for the Union of India would submit that according to the statement of eye- witness, it is the claimant’s negligence and because of his negligence only he sustained injuries and, therefore, it is submitted that learned tribunal has noted that it is act of dead evil suicidal act committed by the claimant which has caused injuries. It can be defended as self-inflicted injury and, therefore, Railway Tribunal is right in denying the compensation.

8. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and considering the impugned judgment as well as record annexed with this appeal, at the outset the first contention of the Tribunal that the claimant was not bona fide passenger is truly covered by decision in the case of Rajni & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986 wherein in paras:11 to 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India', has held that the burden of proof would shift to the Railways once, the Claimant-Appellant filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the railway authorities. It has been further held: -

"15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Devi ( Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198) a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.