Alighting from a running train due to negligence still constitutes an untoward incident warranting compensation.

The respondents, parents of the deceased Sachidanand Dube, filed a claim petition under the Railway Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, seeking compensation for their son’s death in a railway accident.

The deceased was allegedly travelling from Nar Town to Sayma Station in a passenger train and fell from the train near Tarapur Station, sustaining fatal injuries.

The Railway Administration denied liability, relying on a DRM report which stated that the deceased had attempted to alight from a running train while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, and therefore had died due to his own negligence.

The Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 8 lakhs with interest at 9% per annum. The Railway Administration challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

Whether the deceased’s alleged act of alighting from a running train due to his own negligence excluded the incident from the statutory concept of an “untoward incident” and absolved the Railway Administration from liability.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, notwithstanding the Railway Administration’s challenge to the existence or validity of his railway ticket.

Whether the DRM report, prepared after the claim petition was filed and beyond the prescribed period, could be relied upon to defeat the claim.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act governing appeals to the High Court and the no-fault compensation framework under Section 124A of the Railways Act for death or injury arising from an “untoward incident.”

It relied on Shrikumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115, for the principle that an allegation that a passenger negligently alighted from a running train does not, without proof, exclude railway liability under Section 124A.

It further relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 AIR (SC) 2362, and Dolly Rani Saha v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 656, which establish that the initial burden to show bona fide passenger status may be discharged by the claimant’s affidavit; thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways, and mere absence of a ticket is not conclusive against the claim.

The Railway Administration must prove any statutory defence based on the passenger’s alleged self-negligence.

The Court held that the occurrence of a fatal accident on the railway track was undisputed. Even assuming the Railway Administration’s version that the deceased attempted to alight from the running train, such conduct did not by itself take the case outside the scope of an untoward incident.

Applying Shrikumar Gupta, the Court found that the Railway Administration had not proved the alleged act of jumping or alighting from the train; the DRM report did not adequately establish that defence.

On passenger status, the claimant’s affidavit asserting that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket shifted the evidentiary burden to the Railways. Since no railway witness entered the witness box to disprove that assertion, the challenge to bona fide passenger status failed.

The Court also found the DRM report unreliable for the purpose of defeating the claim because it was prepared on 25 August 2017, after the claim petition had been filed on 6 February 2017, although the incident occurred on 20 November 2015 and the statutory requirement contemplated submission within 60 days.

The first appeal was dismissed, the interim relief, if any, was discontinued, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs together with applicable interest to the claimants after due verification and identification.

The connected civil application for withdrawal/disbursement was disposed of.