A passenger’s negligence does not defeat compensation for an established untoward railway incident under Section 124A.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, following the death of Sarful SK at Sargachi station on 9 July 2015. A Sealdah–Sargachi ticket dated 8 July 2015 was recovered from him.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, reasoning that the ticket was valid for the Up direction, whereas the train involved was Train No. 63134 Down, and therefore the deceased was not shown to be a bona fide passenger or to have suffered an “untoward incident.”

On appeal, the claimants relied on the ticket, the claimant’s evidence, and police and railway records. Those records stated that the deceased fell while getting down from Train No. 63134 Down and was run over; the railway also attributed the incident to his carelessness.

1. Whether the evidence established that the deceased died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, despite differences between the claimants’ account and the police and railway reports.

2. Whether the absence of a ticket for the train involved, or the deceased’s alleged negligence, barred compensation under Section 124A.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act includes accidental falling of a passenger from a train within the definition of an “untoward incident,” and Section 124A provides for compensation subject to its statutory exceptions.

In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, the Supreme Court held that beneficial legislation should receive a liberal interpretation consistent with its purpose.

In Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that absence of a ticket, by itself, does not disprove bona fide passenger status; the claimant’s initial burden may be discharged by an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways, and the issue is decided on the facts and circumstances.

The judgment further treated passenger negligence as insufficient, by itself, to defeat a claim under Section 124A.

The Court accepted that the claimants’ account of the train’s direction did not fully align with the police and railway records. However, both sets of records supported the essential fact that the deceased fell while getting down from Train No. 63134 Down and was run over.

The Court held that the mismatch in direction and the absence of a ticket for the Down train did not conclusively establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The ticket recovered from him, though dated the previous day, supported the claim that he travelled by rail; applying Rina Devi, the ticket discrepancy was not fatal.

The alleged carelessness did not bring the case within an exception to Section 124A, and the beneficial purpose of the legislation supported compensation.

It directed the Railways to deposit ₹4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim was filed until the date of judgment, with the amount to be deposited before the Registrar General of the High Court; the claimants may withdraw it upon completing the required formalities.