Absence of eyewitness or contemporaneous railway report cannot by itself defeat a Section 124-A accidental-fall claim.

On 13 November 2019, Ramesh Meena travelled with his brother-in-law, Babulal, from Jatusana to Kund via Rewari. They purchased Ticket No. UDA23916912 for two adult passengers. After reaching Rewari, they boarded Passenger Train No. 59720 for Kund. Babulal deboarded at Kund, while Ramesh allegedly remained in the train. Ramesh was subsequently found dead near the railway line between Rewari and Khori

Phooli Devi, Ramesh’s mother, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on the basis that Ramesh had died due to an accidental fall from the train. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on 21 October 2021, principally finding that there was insufficient evidence that Ramesh had fallen from Train No. 59720 and that Babulal’s testimony was unreliable

The present appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

Whether Ramesh was a bona fide passenger entitled to invoke the compensation scheme under the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the circumstances established an “untoward incident”, namely, an accidental fall of Ramesh from a passenger train under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the absence of an eyewitness, recovery of the ticket from the deceased, or contemporaneous information to railway staff was sufficient to defeat the compensation claim?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from decisions of the Tribunal, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which an accidental fall of a passenger constitutes an “untoward incident” attracting statutory strict or no-fault liability.

Relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, the Court held that Section 124-A imposes strict liability and that negligence or fault is irrelevant once the incident falls within the statutory provision

It further relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, for the principle that the initial burden on the claimant is not onerous and the claim is to be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities

It further relied on Union of India v. Amit Parashar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10004, for the proposition that the absence of direct evidence regarding the manner of the fall does not, by itself, prove that no fall occurred

The Court also applied a liberal and purposive interpretation to the beneficial compensation scheme

The verified journey ticket was issued from Jatusana for two adult passengers travelling to Kund via Rewari, and its genuineness was not disputed. The Court held that the non-recovery of the ticket from Ramesh did not, by itself, negate his status as a bona fide passenger, particularly since the ticket was produced by Babulal, who had accompanied him

Although Babulal’s conduct and relationship with Ramesh could create some doubt, those circumstances did not justify rejecting his testimony as false, especially where it was corroborated by the ticket and surrounding circumstances

The Court further held that an accidental fall from a moving train may not be witnessed or immediately reported to railway personnel. Therefore, the absence of an eyewitness, alarm-chain pulling, railway staff reports, or information from the Loco Pilot or Guard could not be treated as positive evidence disproving the accident

On the evidence as a whole, assessed on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, there was no cogent alternative explanation for Ramesh’s death sufficient to displace the case of accidental fall

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 21 October 2021 was set aside

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable to Phooli Devi in accordance with law and to direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 15 October 2026

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of