RAJNI AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                [2025] 10 S.C.R. 548 : 2025 INSC 1201

                            Rajni and Another
                                     v.
                        Union of India and Another
                       (Civil Appeal No. 12538 of 2025)
                                 08 October 2025
                [Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       The deceased was pushed out of the running train resulting in his
       death. The claim petition of appellants herein was dismissed by
       the Tribunal on ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased
       was a bonafide passenger. The High Court concurred with the
       findings of the Tribunal.

                                    Headnotes†
       Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – s.16 – Railways Act, 1989 –
       s.124 – The victim-deceased is stated to have purchased a
       second-class ticket at Indore Railway Junction – It is alleged that
       due to overcrowding, he was pushed out of the running train,
       resulting in fatal head injuries – Victim died – The appellants,
       being the widow and minor son of the deceased, sought
       compensation before the Tribunal – The Tribunal dismissed
       the claim petition on the ground that claimants had failed to
       prove deceased was a bonafide passenger – The High Court
       concurred with the findings of the Tribunal – Correctness:
       Held: Firstly, the initial burden which is cast on the claimants to prove
       that the deceased had travelled in the train has been discharged
       by the sworn statement made by first claimant (wife of deceased);
       Secondly, the High Court by relying upon the report of DRM
       report (R/1) has arrived at a conclusion that death of 1st claimants
       husband would fall within the purview of expression ‘untoward
       incident’ as defined u/s.124 (A) of the Act; Thirdly, the railway
       ticket which formed part of the police report stood unrebutted;
       Fourthly, the very same report also disclosed the Chief Booking
       Supervisor, Indore had verified the ticket produced alongwith the
       report of the police and certified that ticket had been issued from
       Indore Station – This would clearly satisfy the requirement of
       the expression ‘passenger’ as contemplated under Clause (ii) to
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                              549

            Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another


     Explanation to s.124 (A) of the Act and deceased being declared
     as a ‘passenger’ travelling in the train – In the considered view of
     this Court, the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High
     Court would not be sustainable – The claim petition is allowed in
     part and the Respondents are directed to pay a compensation of
     Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants-applicant. [Paras 12, 16]

     Railways Act, 1989 – Proceedings u/s.124-A of the Railways
     Act are not criminal trials – Welfare statues are governed by
     the principles of preponderance and probabilities – Shifting
     of evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration:
     Held: The proceedings u/s.124-A of the Railways Act are not
     criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but
     welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance
     and probabilities – Once the foundational facts of (i) possession
     or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental
     fall from a train, are established through credible material, the
     statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour
     of the claimant – The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State,
     cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections
     in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses – To hold
     otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation
     and convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race –
     Where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the
     issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an
     untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof
     of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway
     Administration – The absence of a seizure memo, or the inability
     of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat
     a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the
     claimant’s version – This principle shall guide all future tribunals
     and High Courts in construing s.124-A, so that the statutory right
     to compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with the
     humanitarian purpose of the enactment. [Paras 14, 15]

                               Case Law Cited
     Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India [2024] 8 SCR 391 : (2024) 9
     SCC 656 – relied on.
     Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018] 4 SCR 417 : (2019) 3 SCC
     572; Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and Others [2023] 6
     SCR 399 : (2023) 19 SCC 116 – referred to.
550                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                                 List of Acts
       Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987; Railways Act, 1989.

                              List of Keywords
       Claim petition; Untoward incident; Bonafide Passenger; Principles
       of preponderance and probabilities; Shifting of evidentiary burden
       on the Railway Administration; Possession or issuance of a valid
       ticket; Bona fide travel; Social-justice remedy.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12538
       of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2024 of the High Court
       of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MA No. 13451
       of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       N.k. Mody, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Ms. Jigisha Agarwal,
       Ms. Aniya, Ms. Sakshi Chahar, Praveen Swarup.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Saransh Kumar, Saurabh Pandey,
       Yashraj Bundela, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Madhav Sinhal, Amrish
       Kumar.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Aravind Kumar, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment
       and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya
       Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.
       3451 of 2023. By the said order, the High Court affirmed the dismissal
       of the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 16 of
       the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation on
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                           551

               Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another


      account of the death of late Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik in an alleged
      railway accident.
3.    The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as under: On
      19.05.2017, the deceased is stated to have purchased a second-
      class ticket at Indore Railway Junction for travel to Ujjain by train no.
      12465, Ranthambore Express. It is alleged that due to overcrowding,
      he was pushed out of the running train near pole no. 15/21, within the
      jurisdiction of Police Station Narwar, District Ujjain, resulting in fatal
      head injuries. An inquest under Section 174 CrPC was registered and
      was closed as an accidental fall. Post-mortem report opined death
      due to profuse haemorrhage and shock consequent to head injury.
4.    The appellants, being the widow and minor son of the deceased,
      filed Claim Case No. OA-IIU/BPL/96/2019 before the Railway Claims
      Tribunal, Bhopal, seeking compensation of ₹12,00,000. The Tribunal,
      by judgment dated 16.01.2023, dismissed the claim petition on the
      ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased was a bonafide
      passenger. No ticket was recovered from his person or belongings,
      and the photocopy of tickets (Annexure A/7) was considered doubtful
      as there was no seizure memo and the investigating officer was not
      examined. The Tribunal also noticed inconsistencies in the record
      regarding the place of incident.
5.    The appellants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3451 of 2023
      before the High Court. While accepting that the incident constituted
      an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
      the High Court nonetheless concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that
      deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger. The appeal
      was accordingly dismissed on 15.05.2024.
6.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that High Court
      had erred in refusing compensation despite holding the incident to
      be an ‘untoward incident’. Reliance was placed on Union of India v.
      Rina Devi1 and Kamukayi v. Union of India2 to contend that mere
      non-recovery of ticket is not fatal, and once prima facie proof is given,
      the burden shifts on the Railways to disprove the said fact. It was
      argued that deceased had indeed purchased ticket no. L10274210 at



1    (2019) 3 SCC 572
2    2023 SCC OnLine SC 642
552                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       05:36 hours on the date of incident, as reflected in records. Further,
       the failure of the investigating officer to prepare a seizure memo
       ought not to prejudice the dependants; and on a busy corridor such
       as Indore–Ujjain, the Railways could have produced “best evidence”
       like CCTV, guard logs, or alarm-chain records. Hence, he has prayed
       for allowing the appeal.
7.     Per contra, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the
       respondents has supported the concurrent findings. It is submitted
       that no cogent primary evidence exists to establish that deceased was
       holding a valid ticket for the fateful journey. The photocopy produced
       (Annexure A/7) was neither recovered at the spot nor proved through
       a seizure memo or testimony of witness establish that deceased
       had purchased the ticket; the concerned officer was not examined;
       and there is no contemporaneous record of an alarm or report of a
       fall from the running train in that sector. In absence of prima facie
       proof of bonafide travel, compensation under Section 124-A cannot
       be awarded. Hence, she has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8.     We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties
       and have given our anxious consideration to the same. At the
       threshold, it is be noted that interference under Article 136 would not
       be warranted where concurrent findings of fact have been recorded.
       In the instant case, on appraisal of evidence by the Tribunal and
       reappreciation of the same by the High Court it has been held that
       claimants had failed to prove that deceased had died due to the
       injuries sustained on account of fall from train. Unless such findings
       are shown to be perverse or to overlook such material evidence
       relied upon, this Court ordinarily exercises restraint.
9.     The legal position is not in dispute: Section 124-A of the Railways
       Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault regime for “untoward incidents”, but
       compensation remains predicated on the victim being a “passenger”.
       For present purposes, Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A would be
       relevant in the background of same having been denied by railway
       authorities. It reads as follows:
            “Explanation (ii) — ‘passenger’ includes a person who
            has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train
            carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform
            ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                         553

            Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another


     In Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra), this Court affirmed that
     compensation under Sections 124/124-A is payable “whether or
     not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault” and clarified two
     facets namely: (i) the regime is one of strict (no-fault) liability, with
     exceptions confined to the proviso to Section 124-A; and (ii) mere
     non-recovery of a ticket from the victim’s person is not ipso facto
     fatal where the claimant lays a credible prima facie foundation,
     upon which the onus may shift to the Railways. The central inquiry,
     therefore, is whether the appellants had first discharged the threshold
     burden of proving the fact that deceased was a bonafide passenger
     of the Train No.12465 (Indore to Ujjain) so as to trigger any shifting
     of onus on the railway authorities.
10. The Appellants case solely rests on the affidavit dated 10.02.2020
    filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal namely the affidavit of the
    wife of the deceased. She has stated in unequivocal terms that her
    husband late Shri Sanjesh Kumar on the date of the accident i.e., on
    19.05.2017 was travelling from Indore to Ujjain by passenger train
    no. 12485 Ranthambore Express with ticket in second class. She
    has further deposed that the ticket has been seized by the Police
    Narwar, District Ujjain. She has also deposed that on previous day
    night that is on 18.05.2017 she was told by the deceased that he
    was going out with some work and asked for his Aadhar Card and
    ID proof and thereafter he left the house with his luggage. Before the
    Tribunal as well as before the High Court the appellants had placed
    reliance on Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) note dated 23.02.2019
    (R/1) to contend that Police Station Narwar while forwarding the
    documents to the railway authorities had forwarded a railway ticket
    bearing no. L1027420 EX dated 19.05.2017 (Indore to Ujjain). The
    copy of the said railway ticket is at Annexure P-1 which was marked
    as Exhibit P-6 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Thus, the initial
    burden which was cast on the claimants stood discharged. Infact,
    the High Court while reappreciating the evidence tendered before the
    Tribunal found that DRM report dated 26.02.2019 (R/1) revealed that
    at the time of accident, deceased was travelling in train and having
    fallen from train had sustained injuries and later succumbed to the
    same. In the teeth of said finding recorded, the High Court held that
    it established that the death would fall within the purview of ‘untoward
    incident’ as defined under Section 124 (A) of the Railways Act,
    1989. However, while examining the issue as to whether claimants
554                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       had proved deceased was a bonafide passenger, same was held
       in the negative on the premise that the railway ticket was not found
       alongwith the body of the deceased or alongwith the articles found
       near the body of the deceased. However, the aforesaid DRM Report
       dated 23.02.2019 (R/1) has recorded a finding as under: -
            “Ticket Verification: - In the documents received from Police
            Station Narwar in relation to the incident of 19.05.2017, the
            train travel ticket no. L10274210 from Indore to Ujjain has
            been verified by the Chief Booking Supervisor Indore on
            19.05.2017 and it is stated that the said ticket was issued
            from Indore Station. (Document attached).”
11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India3, has
    held that the burden of proof would shift to the Railways once, the
    Claimant-Appellant filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting
    to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the railway
    authorities. It has been further held: -
            “15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial
            pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be
            seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was
            travelling on the train in question. In Rina Devi [Union of
            India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC
            (Civ) 198] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered
            the question of the party on which the burden of proof will
            lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on
            railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden
            would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by
            filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant
            did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways.
            Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket
            would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona
            fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the
            Court is reproduced below: (SCC p. 588, para 29)
                   “29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body
                   on the railway premises will not be conclusive to
                   hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide


3   (2024) 9 SCC 656
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                           555

            Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another


                passenger for which claim for compensation
                could be maintained. However, mere absence
                of ticket with such injured or deceased will not
                negative the claim that he was a bona fide
                passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant
                which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of
                the relevant facts and burden will then shift on
                the Railways and the issue can be decided on
                the facts shown or the attending circumstances.
                This will have to be dealt with from case to case
                on the basis of facts found. The legal position
                in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”
                                            (emphasis supplied)

          16. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an
          affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising
          from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which
          showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and
          that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his
          travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways,
          which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the
          presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger
          on the train in question was not rebutted.
          17. Further, the report of the IO indicates the details
          mentioned in the post-mortem report. It states that the
          cause of death was due to an injury sustained on the
          head and that all injuries were ante-mortem and caused
          by “blunt force impact”. It also states that forty-eight to
          seventy-two hours had passed since the time of death.”
12. Though Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Standing Counsel appearing
    for the Railways has made a fervent plea to contend that the finding
    recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the suspicious circumstances
    of the railway tickets relied upon is sufficient to discard the claim, we
    are not impressed by the said submission for reasons more than one.
    Firstly, the initial burden which is cast on the claimants to prove that
    the deceased had travelled in the train has been discharged by the
    sworn statement made by first claimant (wife of deceased). Secondly,
    the High Court by relying upon the report of DRM report (R/1) has
    arrived at a conclusion that death of 1st claimants husband would
556                                                       [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       fall within the purview of expression ‘untoward incident’ as defined
       under Section 124 (A) of the Act; Thirdly, the railway ticket which
       formed part of the police report stood unrebutted; Fourthly, the very
       same report also disclosed the Chief Booking Supervisor, Indore
       had verified the ticket produced alongwith the report of the police
       and certified that ticket had been issued from Indore Station. This
       would clearly satisfy the requirement of the expression ‘passenger’
       as contemplated under Clause (ii) to Explanation to Section 124 (A)
       of the Act and deceased being declared as a ‘passenger’ travelling
       in the train. This view also gets fortified by the judgment of the
       coordinate bench in the case of Kamukayi and Others vs. Union
       of India and Others4, whereunder it has been held: -

            “9. ……………………………………….. By the explanation
            of the said section clarifying about “passenger”, it would
            include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for
            travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a
            valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward
            incident.
            10. This Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi,
            (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] has explained
            the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found
            on railway premises. While analysing the said issue,
            this Court has considered the judgment of the Madhya
            Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India [Raj
            Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96] and
            the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh
            v. Union of India [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014
            SCC OnLine Del 101] , the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
            Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India [Jetty Naga
            Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP
            828] and also considered the judgment of this Court in
            Kamrunnissa v. Union of India [Kamrunnissa v. Union of
            India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 613] and
            in para 29 concluded as thus : (Rina Devi case [Union
            of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC
            (Civ) 198] , SCC p. 588)


4   (2023) 19 SCC 116
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                      557

            Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another


                “29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body
                on the railway premises will not be conclusive to
                hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide
                passenger for which claim for compensation
                could be maintained. However, mere absence
                of ticket with such injured or deceased will not
                negative the claim that he was a bona fide
                passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant
                which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of
                the relevant facts and burden will then shift on
                the Railways and the issue can be decided on
                the facts shown or the attending circumstances.
                This will have to be dealt with from case to case
                on the basis of facts found. The legal position
                in this regard will stand explained accordingly.””
                                            (emphasis supplied)

13. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the High
    Court had faulted in affirming the finding of the Railways Claims
    Tribunal whereunder the claimants petition had been rejected for non-
    production of a seizure memo of the ticket and for non-examination of
    the investigating officer, which is and was the main thrust of argument
    canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways. This
    reasoning ignores the consistent judicial line that the absence of
    formal seizure or witness examination does not, by itself, negate
    bonafide travel when other material evidence substantiate the claim.
    Mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not defeat
    a legitimate claim under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act,
    1989. Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with liability of railway
    administration for death and injury to passenger due to accident.
    A Hyper technical approach which would frustrate the object of
    providing relief to victims of railway accidents should be eschewed.
    The insistence on a formal seizure memo would amount to importing
    standard of proof which normally is sought for in a criminal trial.
14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section 124-A of the
    Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond
    reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles
    of preponderance and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of
    (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an
558                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material,
       the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour
       of the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State,
       cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections
       in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses. To hold
       otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation
       and convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race.
15. It is therefore declared that where an official railway inquiry or
    evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding
    to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification
    shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the
    evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration. The absence of
    a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical
    evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality
    of circumstances supports the claimant’s version. This principle shall
    guide all future tribunals and High Courts in construing Section 124-A,
    so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible,
    and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment.
16. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
    view that the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High
    Court would not be sustainable and would warrant our interference.
    Hence, the Judgment dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Railway
    Claims Tribunal Bhopal Bench in Case No. OA-IIU/BPL/96/2019 and
    the Order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3451 of 2023 are
    hereby set aside and the claim petition is allowed in part and the
    Respondents are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
    (Rupees Eight Lakhs) to the appellants-applicant within 8 (eight)
    weeks from the date of this Order, failing which the amount awarded
    by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
    the date of Order of this Court till payment. Pending applications, if
    any, stands disposed of.

       Result of the case: Claim petition allowed in part.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan