An injury pattern or body location alone cannot exclude an accidental fall from a train.

On 31 August 2024, Vijay Kumar allegedly travelled from Ghaziabad to Meerut after purchasing a second-class railway ticket and boarded an unknown passenger train. During the journey, he allegedly fell from the moving train near the Vivekananda Flyover, sustained serious injuries, and died

His father, Ravindra Singh, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989

The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, contending that non-recovery of the ticket was not fatal and that the evidence indicated a fall from a train rather than a run-over incident

The Railway Administration relied on the absence of a recovered ticket, the post-mortem injuries, the location of the body between the tracks, and a later DRM inquiry to contend that the deceased had been run over

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger notwithstanding the non-recovery of his journey ticket

2. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an accidental fall from a passenger train and therefore constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, rather than a run-over incident

3. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim warranted interference under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

The appeal was governed by Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the statutory concept of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, non-recovery of a journey ticket is not by itself fatal to a railway compensation claim: the claimant must initially place relevant facts and circumstances establishing bona fide travel, after which the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the claim by cogent evidence.

The beneficial statutory scheme must receive a purposive and liberal interpretation, and the nature or location of injuries and the body cannot, in isolation, conclusively determine whether the deceased fell from a train or was run over.

Relying on Rajpati v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540, the Court held that even a body found in a cut-up condition does not necessarily exclude the possibility of an accidental fall from a train.

The Court held that AW-1’s affidavit specifically stated that the deceased had informed him that he was travelling from Ghaziabad to Meerut with a journey ticket. Although AW-1 had not mentioned the ticket to the police, that omission was treated as a minor discrepancy which did not materially undermine his consistent testimony, particularly in light of the principles in Rina Devi and Lata.

On the nature of the occurrence, the Court found that the Tribunal had treated the amputation of the deceased’s left leg, the position of the body between the tracks, and the alleged trajectory of a falling passenger as determinative of a run-over incident. Applying the beneficial and liberal interpretation required under the statutory scheme, the Court held that those circumstances could not conclusively exclude an accidental fall from a moving train.

The Railway Administration had produced neither eyewitness evidence nor a contemporaneous statement from the train driver or guard establishing that the deceased had been run over while trespassing. Further, the DRM inquiry was initiated nearly one year after the incident and was therefore insufficient, in the circumstances, to rebut the appellants’ case by cogent evidence.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 8 December 2025 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 21 September 2026.