#bona fide passenger

The Calcutta High Court affirmed that a passenger who boards a train in good faith qualifies as a bona-fide passenger, making a death an untoward incident under Section 123(c) and warranting Rs 8 lakh plus interest as compensation to the victim’s family. This clarifies the evidentiary burden for claimants in railway accident cases.

The Gujarat High Court upheld ₹8 lakh compensation for a passenger who fell from a moving train, ruling that alighting from a running train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act. The court also held that a DRM report filed beyond 60 days is inadmissible to deny compensation, regardless of the deceased's alleged negligence.

Delhi High Court clarifies the burden of proof for bona fide passengers and defines untoward incidents under the Railways Act, setting aside a Tribunal order.

Bombay HC sets aside Railway Claims Tribunal order denying compensation, ruling that non-production of a ticket does not disprove bona fide passenger status. The Court held that claimants can discharge initial burden via affidavit, and GRP's report of ticket recovery raises a presumption in their favor, impacting future railway accident compensation claims.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the absence of a railway ticket is not fatal to a compensation claim if the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger is established through witness testimony, GRP records, and post-mortem findings. This clarifies that beneficial legislation like the Railways Act must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable travelers in untoward incidents, shifting burden from formal proof to substantive evidence.

Delhi High Court rules that compensation for untoward incidents under the Railways Act requires strict proof of bona fide passenger status via a valid, contemporaneous ticket. Medical records alone are insufficient without corroborative evidence of lawful travel, reinforcing the Railways' strict liability framework for passenger safety.

Delhi High Court rules that passengers who mistakenly board the wrong train retain their bona fide status under the Railways Act, entitling them to compensation for untoward incidents. The court emphasized that strict liability applies regardless of boarding errors, reinforcing passenger protection under Section 123(c).