A fatal run-over does not establish an untoward incident absent proof of an accidental fall from a passenger train.

The appellants claimed that Edal Kumar, while travelling with his family on a passenger train from Gangrol to Dadri, fell from the train at Dankaur Railway Station because of a sudden jerk and heavy rush, and was then run over by Train No. 15707.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the railway records established that the deceased was run over but did not establish that he had first fallen from the passenger train.

The appellants appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

The High Court condoned the 120-day delay in filing the appeal, taking account of the Supreme Court’s limitation-extension order and the circumstances of the case.

1. Whether the deceased was established to have been a bona fide passenger travelling on the passenger train from which he was alleged to have fallen.

2. Whether the appellants established that the deceased’s fall from the passenger train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal from a decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a passenger train may constitute an “untoward incident”; the claimant must establish that the deceased fell from the train in the manner alleged.

Non-production of a ticket is not, by itself, conclusive against a claim, but the claimant must establish bona fide passenger status through the evidence available.

For the delay application, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 January 2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, which excluded the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 for computing limitation.

The deceased’s wife referred in her affidavit to ticket numbers but did not produce the tickets or other independent evidence establishing that he was travelling on the particular passenger train.

The Court nevertheless considered the appeal on the assumption that he was a bona fide passenger.

The Station Master’s memo, Panchnama and DRM Report recorded that he was run over by Train No. 15707 on the UP main line, but did not establish the alleged prior fall from the passenger train.

Further, the passenger train had already halted at Platform No. 3. In the absence of satisfactory evidence explaining how the deceased came from that train to the adjoining UP main line, the essential circumstance connecting the death to an accidental fall from the passenger train was not proved.

It found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

The application to condone the 120-day delay was allowed.