Absence of scheduled train entry in TSR does not disprove "untoward incident" if official records suggest railway movement.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The court held

The Court answered both issues in the affirmative, holding that the incident was an "untoward incident" and the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

It also directed

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 03.03.2020 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation to the Appellants within two months. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21.05.2026.

01Facts

The Appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 03.03.2020, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Tara Singh (the deceased).

pp. 1-2

The deceased, a regular commuter with a valid Monthly Season Ticket (MST), allegedly fell from a train at Rohtak Railway Station on 24.02.2016 during disruptions caused by the Jat Reservation agitation.

p. 2

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, reasoning that because the Train Signal Register (TSR) showed no scheduled passenger train movements at the time, no "untoward incident" occurred.

p. 2

However, GRP records and the post-mortem report indicated the cause of death was a railway accident, and a valid MST was recovered from the deceased during jamatalashi (search).

pp. 3-4, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

p. 3 · ¶ 8

ii.2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

p. 6 · ¶ 17

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establish "strict liability" for the Railways to compensate victims of "untoward incidents," including accidental falls from trains.

p. 3, 5

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, which clarifies that accidental falls while boarding/deboarding are covered.

p. 5

Jameela v. Union of India, which holds that even passenger negligence does not constitute a "criminal act" under the statutory exceptions.

p. 5

Union of India vs. Rina Devi, ruling that the recovery of a valid ticket/MST shifts the burden of proof to the Railways to disprove the claimant's status as a bona fide passenger.

pp. 6-7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23

Railways Act, 1989 Section 123

04Reasoning

The Court found the Tribunal’s reliance on the absence of scheduled trains in the TSR Register to be an "unduly narrow appreciation of evidence".

p. 3

It noted that the Railways' own DRM inquiry acknowledged the movement of a diesel engine at the relevant time, and witness testimonies confirmed that passengers were waiting for irregular/special train movements due to the ongoing agitation.

pp. 4-5

The Court observed that the GRP proceedings and the Station Master’s memo corroborated a railway-related death near the tracks, and no evidence supported the Railways' theory of "trespassing" or "run-over".

pp. 3-4

Regarding passenger status, the Court held that the recovery of a genuine MST during the search of the deceased created a presumption of bona fide travel which the respondent failed to rebut with material evidence beyond mere "conjectural suggestions".

p. 6, 7