Bona Fide Passenger Burden | Railway Claims Tribunal Appeal : Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, overturning a Tribunal order that had denied compensation to the family of a deceased passenger. The judgment clarifies the evidentiary burden on claimants to establish bona-fide passenger status and expands the meaning of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellants, Sanjeet Mishra and another family member, filed an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, which had dismissed their claim for compensation arising from the death of Abhishek Mishra, the deceased, in a railway accident.

Key Facts

• 28.04.2022: Abhishek Mishra travelled from Anand Vihar to Bapudham (Motihari), Bihar on Train No.12558 (Superfast Express) after purchasing a valid journey ticket.
• While the train was near Mundhapanday, ahead of Moradabad, the deceased fell from the running train due to a heavy rush and push-pull among passengers, sustained grievous injuries and was taken to District Hospital, Moradabad where he later died.
• The Tribunal held that the deceased failed to establish his status as a bona-fide passenger and that there was no evidence of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
• The appellants submitted affidavits (AW-1 and AW-2) stating that the ticket was purchased but lost in the accident; AW-2, the brother, personally witnessed the purchase at Anand Vihar Railway Station and the boarding of the train.
• The Railway Administration’s commercial verification revealed that the ticket vendor, Gupta Communication, was not an authorised railway ticket vendor, and no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased.
• The DRM (Departmental Railway Manager) Report recorded that the deceased was found near the railway track with injuries consistent with a fall from the train.

Procedural History

• 28.03.2023: Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi passed a judgment (Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/123/2022) dismissing the claim.
• CM APPL. 1744/2024: The appellants filed an application seeking condonation of a 175-day delay in filing the present appeal.
• 29.07.2026: The application for condonation was reserved.
• 03.08.2026: The Delhi High Court pronounced its judgment, condoning the delay and allowing the appeal.
• 21.08.2026: The matter is to be listed before the Tribunal for fresh assessment of compensation.

Parties' Positions

• Appellants: Asserted that the deceased purchased a valid ticket, that the brother’s eyewitness testimony established bona-fide passenger status, and that the accident qualified as an untoward incident under the Act.
• Respondent (Union of India): Contended that no ticket was recovered, the alleged vendor was unauthorised, and that no untoward incident was recorded in railway logs, therefore the claim should be dismissed.

Relief Sought

The appellants sought:

• Set-aside of the Tribunal’s order dated 28.03.2023;
• Remand to the Tribunal to assess compensation payable under the Railways Act;
• Direction to the authorities to disburse the compensation within two months of receipt of the order;
• Condonation of the 175-day delay in filing the appeal.