Case at a Glance
A woman travelling on a second-class ticket from Aligarh to Etawah boarded the wrong train, the Mahabodhi Express, and fell between the train and the platform at Shikohabad; her left leg was later amputated above the knee. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed her claim because no ticket was recovered and it believed she had jumped. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri set aside that judgment, holding that the absence of a ticket does not by itself defeat a claim, that railway records showed an accidental fall, and that imprudence or negligence does not make an injury ‘self-inflicted’. The case was remanded only to assess compensation, to be paid within two months.
On 14 March 2024 the appellant and her relatives held second-class tickets from Aligarh to Etawah and meant to take the Gomti Express, but boarded Train No. 12398, the Mahabodhi Express, by mistake. She alleged that ticket-checking staff took her ticket because the train did not stop at Etawah, and that she was pushed from the moving train at Shikohabad station, falling into the gap between the train and the platform. She was taken to the Joint Hospital at Shikohabad and then to S.N. Medical College, Agra, and her left leg was later amputated above the knee.
She filed a claim under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. By judgment dated 30 June 2025, the Principal Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Delhi dismissed it. The Tribunal held that she was not a bona fide passenger because no valid ticket was recovered, disbelieved the allegation of being pushed, concluded that she had jumped from the moving train and treated the injury as self-caused. She appealed to the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a railway accident claim be rejected because the injured passenger’s ticket was not recovered and the Tribunal infers that she jumped, when railway records show that she fell from the train?
A Missing Ticket and an Inferred Jump Are Not Enough
Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines a passenger as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2018) 05 SC CK 0022, (2019) 3 SCC 572, Justice Ohri held that “the mere absence of a ticket with an injured or deceased person does not, by itself, negate the claim”. The claimant bears an initial burden, which can be discharged by placing facts on record, including through an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways. The Court noted that this principle was reiterated in Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India, (2026) 09 SC CK 4582, 2026 INSC 1056. The Tribunal therefore erred in treating the missing ticket as decisive.
On the incident itself, Section 123(c)(2) includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train as an ‘untoward incident’, and Section 124-A makes compensation payable regardless of wrongful act, neglect or default, subject to its exceptions. The Deputy Station Superintendent’s memo of 14 March 2024 and the Train Manager’s statement both described a woman falling from the train at Shikohabad, and the medical record corroborated the injuries. That record, the Court said, shows a fall but “does not independently establish that she had deliberately jumped.” The exception for self-inflicted injury “cannot be invoked merely because the conduct of the injured person is considered imprudent or negligent”. An inference of a jump drawn mainly from the missing ticket and the circumstances of boarding was not a sufficient basis to deny the claim.
What the Court Actually Held
- Non-recovery of a ticket does not by itself defeat a railway accident claim; once the claimant places facts on record, including by affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways (Union of India v. Rina Devi).
- Railway records showing that the passenger fell from the train at the station, corroborated by medical records, establish an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
- The exception for self-inflicted injury cannot be applied merely because the passenger’s conduct was imprudent or negligent; a deliberate jump must be shown, not inferred.
- The Tribunal’s judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to assess compensation in accordance with law, to be disbursed within two months of receipt of the order; the parties are to appear before the Tribunal on 18 March 2027.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Tickets are often lost, taken by staff or destroyed in accidents; the ruling protects injured passengers from losing their claim on that ground alone.
- It draws a clear line between negligence, which does not bar compensation under the no-fault scheme of Section 124-A, and a self-inflicted injury, which does.
- It shows the weight that railway’s own records, such as station memos and train manager statements, carry in proving the incident.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- File an affidavit explaining the journey, the ticket and how it was lost or taken; this discharges the initial burden.
- Obtain the station memo, train guard or manager’s report and hospital records, which can prove the fall.
- Boarding the wrong train or acting carelessly does not by itself defeat a no-fault claim.
For Counsel
- Challenge Tribunal findings of a ‘jump’ that rest on inference rather than evidence.
- Rely on Union of India v. Rina Devi and recent Supreme Court reiterations on the shifting burden regarding tickets.
- Seek a time-bound direction for disbursement on remand, as granted here.
Key Takeaways
- A lost or missing ticket is not fatal to a railway accident claim.
- An accidental fall from a train is an ‘untoward incident’.
- Negligence is not self-inflicted injury.
- Compensation is to be assessed on remand and paid within two months.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I claim compensation from the Railways if I lost my ticket in an accident?
Yes. The Court, following Union of India v. Rina Devi, held that the absence of a ticket does not by itself negate the claim. The claimant must place the facts on record, for example by affidavit, and the burden then shifts to the Railways to show the person was not a bona fide passenger.
What is an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act?
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Under Section 124-A, compensation for such incidents is payable regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default, subject to the listed exceptions.
Did the High Court fix the compensation amount?
No. It set aside the Tribunal’s dismissal and remanded the case to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess compensation in accordance with law, directing disbursement within two months of receiving the order.
Conclusion
The judgment corrects a common error in railway claims: treating a missing ticket and a guess about how a fall happened as enough to deny compensation under a no-fault law. Where the Railways’ own records show a fall, the claimant need not prove the exact manner of it to succeed.
Practical takeaway: In railway accident claims, build the case on an affidavit about the journey and ticket, plus the station and train staff records of the incident; the Railways must then prove a statutory exception.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com