Accidental Fall from Train During Transit Constitutes an Untoward Incident Rebutting Claims of Track Crossing

The Appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal's judgment dated 27.11.2018, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Jitender (the deceased) on 18.12.2017.

The claimants alleged the deceased fell from a running train near Faridabad Yard while traveling from Shivaji Bridge to Ballabgarh.

The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death resulted from crossing tracks, not an "untoward incident".

Along with the appeal, the Appellants sought condonation of a 249-day delay, citing economic hardship.

1. Whether the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned given the beneficial nature of the legislation.

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the delayed recovery of the ticket during jamatalashi proceedings.

3. Whether the incident falls within the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court primarily applied Section 123(c) and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" and establish strict liability for compensation regardless of negligence.

It relied on Mohsina v. Union of India emphasizing a liberal approach toward delay condonation for economically weaker claimants in social welfare litigation.

The Court followed the precedents of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Jameela v. Union of India, which hold that the victim's negligence (e.g., standing near an open door) does not defeat a claim unless it falls under specific statutory exceptions like suicide or self-inflicted injury.

The Court applied the principle from Bhola v. Union of India that the absence or delayed recovery of a ticket is not fatal to a claim.

The Court first condoned the filing delay, noting that social welfare legislations require a "justice-oriented approach" to ensure genuine claims are not defeated by technicalities.

On merits, the Court found the Tribunal’s finding of track-crossing to be "merely inferential" and unsupported by direct evidence such as eyewitnesses or loco-pilot testimony.

The Court noted that the Station Master's memo, the inquest report, and the post-mortem report all corroborated a railway accident.

The Court highlighted the statement of an RPF official who admitted the incident appeared to be a fall from a train.

Regarding the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, the Court held that the recovery of ticket No. 11346096 during jamatalashi proceedings was sufficiently explained by the fact that the search was conducted after dark in the presence of relatives.

The Court ruled that suspicion of "planting" a ticket cannot outweigh official police records and RPF corroboration.

The delay of 249 days was condoned.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 27.11.2018.

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess and disburse the quantum of compensation within two months, with parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.05.2026.