In Smt. Raj Kumari v. Union of India, FAO 394/2024, decided on 28 October 2026, the Delhi High Court reversed a Railway Claims Tribunal order that had denied compensation to the family of a sixty-year-old man who fell from an EMU train and died in December 2022. The Tribunal had found him neither a bona fide passenger nor the victim of an untoward incident, inferring instead that he was hit while crossing the tracks. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held both findings unsustainable on the no-fault scheme of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and remanded the matter for assessment of compensation, payable within two months of the Tribunal's fresh order.
The claim and its dismissal
The deceased, about sixty, allegedly bought a ticket and boarded an EMU train on 10 December 2022; he fell from the train and died. His wife, son and daughters claimed compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. The Tribunal dismissed the claim in July 2024 on the two findings that defeat most railway death claims: that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and that his death was not an untoward incident — the Tribunal inferring, from the position of the body, that he had been struck while crossing the tracks. It also leaned on discrepancies between the testimony of the son and the son-in-law, and on the Divisional Railway Manager\'s report.
The light initial burden on bona fide passenger status
The appeal turned first on the ticket. Applying Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court restated the settled allocation of burdens: the claimant\'s initial burden to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not onerous, and once relevant facts are deposed to, the onus shifts to the Railways. The surrounding circumstances — the journey, the family\'s account of the ticket purchase, the recovery of the body along the route — must be weighed as a whole. Non-recovery of the ticket from a man who died falling from a train cannot be treated as conclusive against his family, and the testimonial discrepancies the Tribunal collected did not justify rejecting passenger status on that ground alone.
An inference with nothing under it
The Tribunal\'s alternative theory — death while crossing the tracks — fared worse. The record contained no direct evidence that the deceased had entered the railway line to cross it: the body\'s location and the panchnama were not grounded in any eyewitness account, and the DRM report\'s own version, that he was boarding without a ticket, contradicted the crossing theory while simultaneously conceding that he was boarding. The Court added the point that disposes of many such cases: even an accidental fall while boarding or deboarding is an untoward incident within Section 123(c), attracting the no-fault liability of Section 124-A.
The judgment\'s most useful paragraph for claimants concerns the standard of proof: under a no-fault welfare provision, a claimant is not required to reconstruct every detail of the accident. It is enough that the record, read as a whole, shows on a preponderance of probabilities that the death resulted from an untoward incident. Unwitnessed deaths on the railways are the norm, not the exception, and the statute is not to be administered as if they were murder trials.
The result and the practice points
The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal\'s judgment set aside, and the matter remanded for assessment of compensation in accordance with law, with disbursal directed within two months of the order and the matter listed before the Tribunal in February 2027. For families pursuing claims under Section 124-A, three practice points emerge. Plead and prove the journey\'s circumstances fully — the purchase of the ticket, the purpose of travel, the station sequence — because that is what discharges the light initial burden. Attack inquiry reports that rest on inference rather than eyewitness material; a DRM report is evidence to be weighed, not a verdict. And treat testimonial discrepancies among grieving relatives as explicable human variance — the High Court plainly does. The same framework governs claims arising from Delhi\'s suburban and metro-feeder railway traffic, where falls during boarding remain the commonest fact pattern before the Principal Bench.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a family lose the claim if the train ticket is never found?
No. Following Union of India v. Rina Devi, the initial burden on a claimant to establish bona fide passenger status is light and may be discharged by an affidavit of relevant facts; the burden then shifts to the Railways to disprove it. Bodies are recovered, tickets often are not — non-recovery of the ticket cannot be treated as conclusive against the claimants.
What counts as an "untoward incident"?
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers, and Section 124-A attaches no-fault liability to it. The Court reiterated that even an accidental fall while boarding or deboarding is an untoward incident — self-inflicted injury and criminal acts are the statutory exceptions, which the Railways must establish.
Why was the Tribunal's track-crossing theory rejected?
Because nothing on the record supported it. The inference rested on the body's position and a panchnama not based on eyewitness accounts, and the DRM report's suggestion that the deceased was boarding ticketless actually contradicted the oral evidence of a purchased ticket. There was no direct evidence that the deceased had entered the railway line to cross it.
What is the standard of proof in these claims?
Preponderance of probabilities on the record read as a whole, in keeping with the welfare character of the no-fault provision. A claimant is not required to reconstruct every detail of the accident; discrepancies in family members' testimony, natural after an unwitnessed death, do not by themselves defeat the claim.