Railway Passenger Does Not Lose Bona Fide Status by Changing Trains During Journey: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds DRM Report Cannot Defeat Statutory Compensation Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act

Case Name: Enudin & Another v. Union of India

Date of Judgment: 31 July 2026

Citation: FAO-4374-2016

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal and held that a railway passenger travelling under a valid journey ticket does not cease to be a bona fide passenger merely because he changes trains or boards another train during the course of the same journey. The Court further held that a Departmental Railway Manager (DRM) enquiry report is only a piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, displace the statutory presumption arising from possession of a valid railway ticket or defeat a claim for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Reiterating that Section 124-A embodies the principle of strict liability, the Court observed that once an untoward incident involving a bona fide passenger is established, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to prove any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A.

Summary: The appellants, parents of the deceased, challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of their claim seeking compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act for the death of their son. According to the claimants, the deceased had purchased a valid second-class railway ticket from Nakodar to Katihar and, while travelling in a general compartment, accidentally fell from a running train due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, ultimately succumbing to his injuries. The Railway Administration resisted the claim by contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, alleging that the ticket had been procured and that the accident occurred while he attempted to board another passenger train. Accepting these contentions, the Tribunal held that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly technical approach by focusing on the route of Train No. 15708 instead of examining whether the deceased was travelling under a valid ticket. The Court observed that possession of a valid railway journey ticket raises a statutory presumption that the traveller is a bona fide passenger, and such presumption cannot be displaced merely because the passenger changed trains or boarded another train during the course of the journey. Recognising the practical realities of railway travel, the Court held that passengers frequently change trains at intermediate junctions to complete their journeys, and such conduct neither invalidates the journey ticket nor extinguishes the passenger’s legal status. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Shri Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that compensation under Section 124-A cannot be denied merely because the passenger boarded a different train while undertaking a lawful journey.

The High Court further held that the Tribunal had erred in treating the DRM enquiry report as conclusive evidence. A departmental enquiry report, the Court observed, is merely one piece of evidence and cannot override the statutory presumption arising from possession of a valid railway ticket. Significantly, the Railway Administration failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A, such as suicide, attempted suicide, self-inflicted injuries, criminal acts, intoxication, insanity or death from natural causes. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Jameela v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that accidental fall from a running train squarely constitutes an “untoward incident” and that Section 124-A, being a beneficial provision founded on strict liability, must receive a liberal interpretation. Since the deceased remained a bona fide passenger throughout his journey and died in an untoward incident, the appellants, as his dependent parents, were held entitled to statutory compensation of ₹4,00,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, enhanced to 12% per annum in case of default beyond eight weeks.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, and awarded the appellants ₹4,00,000 as statutory compensation, together with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, subject to enhancement to 12% per annum if payment was not made within eight weeks.