Accidental fall while alighting from a train constitutes an untoward incident warranting statutory compensation.

The appellants, who were the claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, were the family members of Bhanu Prakash Pandey and Vanshika, who died while travelling from Fatehgarh to Shahdara by Kalindi Express.

The appellants’ case was that, while attempting to alight from the train, the deceased were compelled to use the off-side exit due to a blocked passage; when the train suddenly moved, they accidentally fell and sustained fatal injuries.

The Tribunal accepted that both deceased were bona fide passengers but dismissed the claims, holding that they had deboarded from the off-side, crossed the railway tracks, and were run over by another train.

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

Whether the deaths of the deceased constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding, on the basis of the Station Master’s memo and the nature of the post-mortem injuries, that the deceased had crossed the railway tracks and were run over, rather than having accidentally fallen from the train.

The Court applied Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which accidental falling of a bona fide passenger while boarding or alighting from a train constitutes an “untoward incident” attracting the Railways’ strict liability, subject only to the statutory exceptions.

Relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, the Court held that the beneficial provisions of the Act must receive a liberal interpretation and that contributory negligence is not a defence to a claim under Section 124-A.

A claim can be denied on the grounds of a “self-inflicted injury” or “criminal act” only where the facts strictly satisfy those statutory exceptions, requiring more than speculative proof.

The Court also relied on Rajpati v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540, for the principle that the mutilated or crushed condition of a body, by itself, does not conclusively establish that the deceased was run over while crossing the tracks.

The Court found that the deceased’s status as bona fide passengers had already been established by the Tribunal and was not challenged by the Railways.

The eyewitness, AW-2, supported the appellants’ account that the deceased attempted to alight from the platform side but were compelled to use the off-side exit and fell when the train moved; her testimony remained materially unimpeached in cross-examination.

The Station Master’s memo merely recorded that a man and a woman had been run over near Platform No. 3 and did not state that they had crossed the tracks or acted deliberately.

No independent eyewitness was produced by the Railways to establish track-crossing.

Further, the post-mortem reports described the injuries but did not determine how they were caused, and no medical opinion ruled out accidental falling from a moving train.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s conclusion rested on an unsupported inference from the location of the bodies and the nature of the injuries, which could not displace the consistent and more probable account of accidental falling.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 17.05.2023 was set aside.

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

The appeal was consequently allowed and disposed of, with the matter directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 19.08.2026.