Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court

“No-Fault Liability Under Section 124-A Still Requires Proof That the Victim Was a Passenger With a Valid Ticket”, Delhi High Court recently reiterated that compensation for railway accidents under the “no-fault liability” regime of the Railways Act cannot be granted unless the claimant proves that he was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket.

On 11 March 2026, the Delhi High Court in Jaipal Yadav v. Union of India dismissed an appeal challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected the compensation claim. The Court held that a discrepancy in the journey ticket and absence of corroborative evidence regarding the alleged fall from the train were fatal to the claim, thereby disentitling the appellant from compensation under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while affirming the Tribunal’s decision, observed that the statutory compensation regime for “untoward incidents” is contingent upon the victim establishing that he was a passenger with a valid ticket, failing which the claim cannot succeed.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Jaipal Yadav, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, seeking compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in a railway accident.

According to the appellant, on 28 September 2019, he purchased a general journey ticket from Taj Nagar to Rewari and boarded the Old Delhi–Rewari Passenger Train (No. 54417). He alleged that the train was overcrowded and while standing near the entrance of the compartment, a sudden push from fellow passengers caused him to lose balance and fall from the moving train.

As a result of the alleged fall, the appellant sustained severe injuries including a crush injury to the left leg, deformity in the right knee, head injuries and scalp lacerations. He was first admitted to Sunrise Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared, and was later treated at Artemis Hospital, Gurugram. Ultimately, the injuries led to amputation of his left leg and permanent locomotor disability.

The appellant also claimed that he had handed over his journey ticket to the GRP officials at Pataudi Road during the investigation.

However, by its judgment dated 16 July 2021, the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the appellant had failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger or that the injuries were caused by an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989.

Legal Issues Before the Court and Court’s Observations

The case raised two crucial legal questions before the High Court:

First, whether the appellant could be considered a “bona fide passenger” within the meaning of the Railways Act.

Second, whether the alleged fall from the train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) so as to attract compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claim despite the production of the journey ticket and the GRP records documenting the incident. He further relied on medical records and the disability certificate to demonstrate the seriousness of the injuries suffered.

The respondent-Railways, however, contended that the ticket produced by the appellant contained a material discrepancy, and the verification report revealed that it had been issued a day prior to the alleged incident. It was further argued that no railway official, passenger, or train guard reported any such fall, and the Guard’s Memo Book contained no entry regarding the alleged accident.

Bona Fide Passenger Requirement

The High Court closely examined the journey ticket produced by the appellant.

Although the appellant asserted that the ticket was purchased on 28 September 2019, the verification report revealed that the ticket had actually been issued on 27 September 2019, a day prior to the alleged incident. The Court noted that a general class ticket is valid only for a limited duration, and therefore the ticket could not have been used for travel on the next day.

Justice Ohri observed:

“This discrepancy has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant… the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the said ticket, being a general class ticket valid only for a limited duration, could not have been used for travel on the date of the alleged incident appears to be justified.”

Consequently, the Court held that the appellant failed to establish that he was travelling as a passenger with a valid ticket, and therefore he could not be regarded as a bona fide passenger.

Proof of “Untoward Incident”

The Court also examined whether the injuries were caused due to an accidental fall from the train, which would qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.

The appellant relied on GRP entries and hospital records to support his claim. However, the Court found that no eyewitness account existed, and railway officials had denied receiving any information about such an incident.

The ticket-vending official on duty at Taj Nagar Halt and the train guard both stated that no information regarding any fall from the train was received from passengers or railway staff. Further, the Guard’s Memo Book did not record any such occurrence.

The Court therefore held:

“The mere recording of an entry by the GRP… regarding an injured person, even if followed by visits of a police official to the hospital, is insufficient to establish that the injuries were sustained as a result of an accidental fall from the train.”

Even though the Court acknowledged that the appellant had suffered serious injuries resulting in 85% locomotor disability, it clarified that medical documents alone cannot establish that the injuries were caused due to an untoward railway incident.

Interpretation of Section 124-A of the Railways Act

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajni v. Union of India (2025) to reiterate the legal position governing railway accident compensation.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court observed:

“Section 124-A of the Railways Act embodies a no-fault regime for ‘untoward incidents’, but compensation remains predicated on the victim being a ‘passenger’.”

The Court emphasised that Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A defines a passenger as a person who has purchased a valid ticket. Therefore, establishing passenger status is a foundational requirement before compensation can be granted.

After examining the evidence and legal framework, the Delhi High Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish two essential elements of a railway accident claim:

First, he failed to prove that he was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket.

Second, he failed to establish that his injuries resulted from an “untoward incident” involving a train.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim for compensation, and there was no ground for interference with the impugned judgment.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026