Valid Privilege Pass Suffices to Establish BonaFide Passenger Status of Railway Employees

Railway accident compensation jurisprudence in India has consistently revolved around two core questions: whether the incident qualifies as an “untoward incident” and whether the victim was a “bonafide passenger” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989. While courts have adopted a liberal approach in recognising accidental falls as untoward incidents, disputes frequently arise on the second limb, especially where the victim is a railway employee travelling on a free or privilege pass

In Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India (2026), the Bombay High Court revisited this issue and delivered a significant clarification: a valid privilege/free pass held by a railway employee is sufficient to establish bona fide passenger status, even if certain journey particulars are not filled in, provided there is no evidence of misuse or excess travel. The judgment reinforces a purposive interpretation of welfare legislation and prevents technicalities from defeating legitimate compensation claims.

Statutory Framework: Compensation Under the Railways Act, 1989

Section 124A and the Concept of “Passenger”

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for strict liability compensation where death or injury results from an “untoward incident,” irrespective of fault. The Explanation to Section 124A defines “passenger” to include:

1. A railway servant on duty, and
2. A person who has purchased a valid ticket or holds a valid authority to travel.

Thus, entitlement to compensation hinges not merely on the occurrence of the accident but also on the legal status of the victim as a passenger.

Railway Servants and Travel Entitlements

Railway employees enjoy special travel privileges governed by the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, as amended in 1993. These rules recognise free passes and privilege passes as valid authorities permitting travel without the purchase of a conventional ticket. Section 2(f) of the Rules defines a “pass” as an authority granted by the Railway Administration allowing gratuitous travel.

Factual Background of the Case

The appellant, Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare, was the widow of a railway employee who died after falling from an express train between Khandala and Monkey Hill. The deceased was travelling on a second-class free pass, which was valid on the date of the accident. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the compensation claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, primarily because the pass did not contain filled-in details such as date of journey, arrival, or departure.

The finding that the incident was an accidental fall, an untoward incident, was not disputed. The sole issue before the High Court was whether failure to endorse journey particulars on a valid privilege pass disentitled the dependants from compensation.

Issue

• Does a railway employee holding a valid privilege/free pass cease to be a bona fide passenger merely because journey details were not filled in on the pass?

Reasoning of the Bombay High Court

1. Validity of the Pass Is the Determining Factor

The Court emphasised that there was no dispute regarding the validity of the free pass at the time of the accident. Once validity is established, the presumption must operate in favour of the employee being a lawful passenger. The Court categorically rejected the Tribunal’s approach of equating non-endorsement with the absence of authority to travel.

2. Endorsement Requirements Are Not Mandatory in All Cases

The Court drew an important distinction between reserved travel and unreserved travel. If a railway employee seeks a reserved berth, endorsement by the ticket counter specifying the train number, coach, and berth becomes necessary. However, where the employee travels in an unreserved compartment, such endorsement is not mandatory. In the present case, there was no evidence that the deceased was travelling in a reserved coach.

Thus, non-endorsement on the pass was held to be inconsequential.

3. Technical Omissions Cannot Defeat Beneficial Legislation

The Court held that mere failure by the employee to fill in journey particulars cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of unauthorised travel. Several practical reasons could explain such omission, and the Railways failed to show any misuse, excess trips, or violation of entitlement.

The Court reiterated that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation, and its provisions must be interpreted to advance, not defeat, the object of social security.

4. Burden of Proof on the Railways

Where a valid pass is produced, the burden shifts to the Railways to establish misuse or invalidity. In the absence of such proof, an adverse inference against the victim is impermissible. The Court observed that if misuse were suspected, the Rules themselves provide for penalties and disciplinary action, none of which were invoked in the present case.

Reliance on Precedents

Pulipaka Varalakshmi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine, AP 263

The Bombay High Court relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, which held that possession of a valid railway pass is sufficient to treat the holder as a bona fide passenger. While compensation was reduced in that case due to ambiguity regarding use, the principle of bona fide status was affirmed.

Supporting High Court Decisions

The judgment also found support in decisions from multiple High Courts, including:

• R.C. Jayamohan & Anr. v. Union of India (2020)
• Jaya & Ors. v. Union of India (2019)
• Surekha Suresh Jadhav v. Union of India (2025)

These cases consistently underline that privilege passes are valid travel authorities under Section 124A.

Compensation: A Balanced Approach

Although the Court held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, it did not grant full statutory compensation. Following Pulipaka Varalakshmi, the Court exercised discretion and awarded ₹3 lakhs with interest, noting that the employee ought to have completed the endorsement details.

This approach reflects a balance between:

• Preventing unjust denial of compensation, and
• Encouraging compliance with procedural requirements.

Conclusion

Bombay High Court’s decision in Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India marks an important reaffirmation of settled principles in railway accident compensation law. It clarifies that a valid privilege or free pass held by a railway employee constitutes sufficient proof of bona fide passenger status, and that technical omissions in filling journey particulars cannot, by themselves, defeat statutory compensation claims.

By harmonising statutory interpretation with fairness, the judgment strengthens the protective framework of the Railways Act and ensures that dependants of railway employees are not denied relief on hyper-technical grounds. It stands as a clear reminder that beneficial legislation must be applied with humanity, not rigidity.

Important Link