A body found on railway tracks alone does not disprove accidental falling from a passenger train.

The appellants, parents of the deceased, claimed that he had purchased a valid ticket and was travelling from Rampur Junction to Bareilly Junction on 13 March 2017 when he accidentally fell from a moving train and died.

The ticket was not recovered.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that bona fide passenger status and an untoward incident had not been established, relying in part on inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony and the condition and location of the body.

The High Court first condoned the 210-day delay in filing the appeal, then considered the challenge to the Tribunal’s decision.

1. Whether the deceased was proved to be a bona fide passenger notwithstanding the non-recovery of his ticket.

2. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, rather than trespass or suicide.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal from a Tribunal decision; Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 covers accidental falling of a passenger from a train.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant bears an initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status, but non-recovery of a ticket does not by itself defeat the claim; the circumstances must be considered, and the burden may then shift to the Railways.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India for a non-technical approach and the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, and on Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India for the requirement that the Railways rebut the claimant’s account with cogent evidence.

The cited decisions in Guruvachan Singh v. Union of India and Sukhmandar Singh v. Union of India support the principle that the body’s location or condition, without supporting evidence, does not conclusively establish trespass or a run-over incident.

The appellants had consistently pleaded that the deceased travelled with a valid ticket and lost it in the incident.

Although the witness’s inconsistent evidence could not establish the identity of the train, it did not prove that the deceased travelled without a ticket; the Railways led no evidence after the appellants closed their case.

As to the manner of death, the body’s location and condition showed that it had been run over, but did not establish how the deceased came onto the track or that he had committed suicide.

The Railways did not examine the persons whose statements were relied on in the DRM report, and neither the panchnama nor the medical evidence established voluntary entry onto the track.

On the evidence as a whole, accidental falling from a moving train was the more probable explanation.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the order; the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 30 November 2026.