Official Railway Ticket Verification Constitutes Prima Facie Proof of Bonafide Travel; Railways Must Rebut to Avoid Liability

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal by special leave against the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, which had affirmed the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation for the death of a passenger in an alleged railway accident.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the judgments of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, and the High Court dated 16.01.2023 and 15.05.2024 respectively, and directed payment of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 to the appellants within eight weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum would run from the date of the order. The Court reiterated that the statutory scheme under Section 124-A of the Railways Act embodied a no-fault liability approach and emphasised that “compensation under Sections 124/124-A is payable ‘whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault’.” The Court also held that proceedings under Section 124-A “are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt” and applied the settled principle that once a claimant discharged the initial burden by credible prima facie material, the evidentiary burden shifted to the Railways. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background

The deceased allegedly purchased a second-class ticket at Indore Junction on 19.05.2017 for travel to Ujjain on Train No. 12465 (Ranthambore Express) and was said to have been pushed out of the running train near pole no. 15/21, resulting in fatal head injuries. An inquest under Section 174 CrPC was registered and closed as an accidental fall; the post-mortem recorded death due to profuse haemorrhage and shock consequent to head injury. The widow and minor son filed Claim Case No. OA-IIU/BPL/96/2019 before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking Rs. 12,00,000. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on 16.01.2023 on the ground that the claimants had not proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger—no ticket was recovered with the body, the photocopy of the ticket was not supported by a seizure memo and the investigating officer was not examined. The High Court accepted that the incident constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) but upheld the finding that bonafide passenger status was not proved.

Before this Court the appellants relied on precedents including Union of India v. Rina Devi and Kamukayi v. Union of India to contend that mere non-recovery of a ticket was not fatal and that once prima facie proof was laid, the onus shifted to the Railways. The appellants placed on record an affidavit of the wife and a Divisional Railway Manager’s note verifying issuance of ticket no. L10274210 from Indore on 19.05.2017. The Railways relied on absence of contemporaneous seizure and the non-examination of the investigating officer. This Court found that the appellants had discharged the initial burden, that the DRM verification was unrebutted, and that the Tribunal and High Court had adopted an unduly technical approach which frustrated the welfare object of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act. The Court therefore allowed the claim in part and issued the payment direction; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19549 of 2024) Case Title: Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not recorded in judgment] For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate