#Railway Law

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 granted condonation of an 855-day filing delay, stressing that the Railways Act’s remedial purpose warrants a liberal approach. It also ruled that a passenger’s loss of a ticket does not bar a claim and that an accidental fall from a train constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ under the Act, expanding compensation eligibility for railway passengers.

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 High Court holds that absence of a recovered ticket does not negate bonafide passenger status under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Accidental falls from trains qualify as 'untoward incidents,' entitling dependents to compensation, even without physical proof of ticket. The ruling reinforces strict liability for railways in passenger safety cases.