Accidental falls while boarding or alighting qualify as untoward incidents under the Railways Act.

On 13.04.2015, Abhay Kumar Singh was travelling with co-passenger Jay Nandan Pal from New Delhi to Gaya by Train No. 12382, Poorva Express. The appellants claimed that the deceased possessed a valid second-class superfast ticket, alighted at Mughalsarai to purchase water, re-boarded the train, and, owing to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, fell from the train and died.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim under OA(IIu) 147/2015, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor the victim of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989. The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger notwithstanding that no journey ticket was recovered from his body.

Whether the deceased’s fatal fall from Train No. 12382 constituted an “untoward incident” giving rise to a claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, including where the passenger had alighted and subsequently re-boarded the train.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Under the scheme of the Railways Act, 1989, compensation may be claimed for a death resulting from an “untoward incident,” including an accidental fall from a train.

The claimant initially bears the burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that burden may be discharged through relevant facts and circumstances, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent material, as held in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and reiterated in Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350. Rina Devi also covers accidental falls while boarding or alighting from a train.

The Court accepted the evidence of Jay Nandan Pal, an accompanying co-passenger, who testified that he had travelled with the deceased from New Delhi, had seen two tickets being purchased, and had seen the tickets kept in the deceased’s shirt pocket.

The minor inconsistencies relied upon by the Tribunal—such as the witness’s inability to recall the exact ticket price and details regarding his employment and residence—did not undermine the core testimony that he had travelled with the deceased. The absence of a recovered ticket was therefore insufficient, by itself, to disprove bona fide passenger status.

Regarding the occurrence, the claim application, the registration of U.D. Case No. 22/15, and the Railway’s own investigation report consistently indicated that the deceased had fallen from Train No. 12382 near Rafiganj.

The Court further held that alighting at Mughalsarai and subsequently re-boarding did not exclude the claim, since accidental falls while boarding or alighting are covered by the principle in Rina Devi. Although the DRM Report had not been filed before the Tribunal, the Court considered it along with the contemporaneous record after it was produced in appeal.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 21.04.2017 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to determine the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement within two months of receipt of the order. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 25.09.2026.