A run-over record and injury pattern alone do not establish track-crossing over accidental fall.

The appellant’s 13-year-old son, Sachin Yadav, was allegedly travelling with his maternal cousin, Rinkee, from Achalda to Bharthana on 11 June 2012 after purchasing a joint journey ticket.

He sustained fatal injuries in an incident involving a train at Bharthana.

The Panchnama and the DRM report recorded recovery of a journey ticket, although its particulars were incomplete.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 20 June 2022, concluding that the deceased had been run over while crossing the tracks and was not shown to be a bona fide passenger.

The appellant challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

1. Whether the evidence, including the recorded recovery of a journey ticket and the oral testimony, established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger

2. Whether the evidence established that the death resulted from an “untoward incident” within Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, rather than the deceased being run over while crossing the tracks

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

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident”; Section 124-A imposes no-fault liability for qualifying railway accidents and does not require proof of the precise mechanics of the accident where the occurrence is established on a preponderance of probabilities.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant’s initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous and may be discharged by proving relevant facts and circumstances, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent evidence.

The judgment notes that this principle was reiterated in Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India.

The judgment also relies on Rajpati v. Union of India and Smt. Pinki v. Union of India for the principle that the body’s condition or location, without sufficient supporting evidence, does not by itself rule out an accidental fall or establish that the deceased was crossing the tracks.

The recorded recovery of a ticket, considered with the appellant’s evidence and Rinkee’s testimony that she travelled with the deceased, was sufficient to discharge the initial burden of showing bona fide passenger status, despite the missing ticket particulars; the Railways did not produce evidence rebutting that account.

The railway records and post-mortem report established a fatal train-related incident and serious injuries, but did not conclusively establish that the deceased had been crossing the tracks.

The Loco Pilot was not examined, and the entry in the DRM report could not substitute for direct testimony proving the circumstances of the incident.

In the absence of an eyewitness or other cogent evidence of track-crossing, the Tribunal could not exclude the possibility of an accidental fall based merely on the “run over” description, body location, or injuries.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter for assessment of compensation in accordance with law, directing disbursement within two months of receipt of the order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 19 January 2027.