Accidental falls during boarding constitute untoward incidents; recovered tickets shift the burden of proof to the Railways.

The appellant’s son, Sanjay Chauhan ("the deceased"), was traveling from Nawada to Delhi via Train No. 12815 on 24.09.2011

The appellant alleged that the deceased fell from the train at Gaya Junction due to heavy rush and succumbed to his injuries

A journey ticket (No. F-79225103) was recovered from him

The Railway Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal") dismissed the claim on 17.01.2014, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death did not result from an "untoward incident" due to inconsistencies in the claimant's version and lack of eyewitnesses

The Tribunal also relied on a post-mortem report stating no "external mechanical injuries" were found

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989

2. Whether the incident in question constitutes an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989

The Court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which govern compensation for "untoward incidents," including accidental falls from a train

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008), which held that "untoward incident" must be interpreted liberally to include accidents occurring while a passenger is attempting to board or alight from a train

Furthermore, the Court applied Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), establishing that once a claimant produces material indicating travel (such as a recovered ticket), the burden of proof shifts to the Railways to disprove the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger

The Court observed that the Station Master’s memo, GRP proceedings, and the "Report of Untoward Incident" consistently established that the deceased was found injured within railway premises due to an "accidental fall"

The Court found that the DRM report corroborated the recovery of a valid journey ticket, which the Tribunal had ignored on "conjectural grounds"

The High Court rejected the Tribunal's reliance on minor inconsistencies in the appellant's testimony, ruling that such discrepancies cannot override contemporaneous official records

Regarding the post-mortem report, the Court held that since the Railways' own records (DRM and GRP reports) attributed the death to a head injury from an accidental fall at the platform, isolated observations in the medical report were insufficient to rebut the claim of an "untoward incident"

Under the principle of strict liability, the Court held that the Railways failed to discharge the burden of proving any statutory exception

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an "untoward incident"

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the quantum of compensation and ensure disbursement within two months of the order

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.04.2026