Accidental Falling Over Prescribed Journey Destination Constitutes Untoward Incident Entitling Passenger to Statutory Compensation

On August 14, 2014, Ramilaben Solanki (the deceased), holding a Monthly Season Ticket (MST) for travel from Bharuch to Surat, allegedly fell from the Kutch Express due to a heavy rush and jerk in the compartment.

Her body was discovered at km 266/15 between Surat and Udhana stations.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- with 9% interest to the claimants.

The Union of India appealed, contending that since the body was found beyond Surat (the MST destination), the deceased had "over-traveled" and ceased to be a ‘bona fide’ passenger.

1. Whether a passenger who travels beyond the destination prescribed in their ticket (over-traveling) remains a ‘bona fide’ passenger under the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the death of the deceased qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an "untoward incident" as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

It relied on Section 124-A, which establishes strict liability for the Railways to pay compensation unless specific exceptions (e.g., self-inflicted injury) apply.

The Court followed the precedent of Dulari Devi Ors. v. Union of India (2019), which held that over-traveling due to missing a stop does not negate ‘bona fide’ status.

Crucially, it applied the doctrine from Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another (2025), establishing that accidental falling creates a statutory presumption that the victim was a ‘bona fide’ passenger, and that a "hyper-technical approach" must be avoided in welfare legislation.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention regarding over-traveling, noting that the Railway Administration failed to provide evidence that the deceased was a trespasser or was illegally crossing tracks.

It reasoned that foundering of the body within railway premises (km 266/15) immediately following the destination station supports the claim of falling due to a jerk.

Applying the "preponderance of probabilities," the Court observed that under Section 124-A, once a valid ticket and an accidental fall are established, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove an exception, which they failed to do.

The Court emphasized that since the Railways Act is a welfare statute, technical irregularities in travel (like over-traveling by one station) should not frustrate the objective of social justice.

It held that the deceased was a ‘bona fide’ passenger and her death resulted from an "untoward incident".

The Court upheld the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- as per the amended 1990 Rules, directing the RCT to disburse the amount with interest to the claimants immediately.