An accidental fall while alighting is an untoward incident, notwithstanding mere absence of a ticket.

On 14 November 2014, Vijay Kumar was travelling from Delhi to Ghaziabad by EMU train.

The appellants’ case was that, while he was alighting at Platform No. 5, Ghaziabad Railway Station, a sudden and heavy jerk caused him to fall from the train and suffer grievous injuries.

He was treated at M.M.G. Hospital, Ghaziabad, and thereafter at G.T.B. Hospital, Shahdara, where he died on 26 November 2014.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on 18 October 2019, principally finding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence had not been established as an accidental fall from the train.

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

1. Whether the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger could be established despite the non-recovery of a journey ticket.

2. Whether the deceased’s fall while alighting from the EMU, allegedly caused by a sudden and heavy jerk, constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim on the basis of the alleged absence of evidence regarding the precise manner of the fall and the nature of the injuries.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 concerning appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which an accidental fall while boarding or de-boarding a train may constitute an “untoward incident” giving rise to statutory compensation, subject to the applicable exceptions.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that mere non-recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove bona fide passenger status; once the claimant establishes the relevant facts on a preponderance of probabilities, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent material.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 715, which reiterated this evidentiary approach, and on Dharmvir v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7279, and Jai Pal & Ors. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4309, regarding the assessment of railway accidents and falls while alighting.

Under Rina Devi, “self-inflicted injury” requires an intentional act and does not include mere negligence.

The Court found that the appellants had consistently pleaded that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket which was lost in the accident.

The deceased’s wife testified to the purchase of the ticket, and his brother-in-law stated that he had seen the deceased purchase it at the Delhi Booking Office.

This evidence was sufficient to discharge the appellants’ initial burden, while the Railways failed to rebut it through cogent evidence; therefore, non-recovery of the ticket did not negate bona fide passenger status.

The Court further held that the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the impossibility of the fall was based on an assumption about the space between the train and the platform, unsupported by evidence.

The contemporaneous railway record placed the deceased on Platform No. 5 after the incident, and the DRM inquiry itself considered that he had fallen while getting down from the train, although it attributed the incident to negligence.

Such negligence did not amount to a self-inflicted injury because there was no intentional act.

Accordingly, the alleged fall while alighting fell within the statutory concept of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2).

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 18 October 2019 was set aside.

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

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30 September 2026.