Attempting to board a run-through train at a non-stopping station is not an untoward incident.

On 15 December 2016, Ravi Parcha, the deceased, possessed a valid journey ticket from Shivaji Bridge to Ghaziabad and was therefore accepted as a bona fide passenger by the Railway Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”).

At Tilak Bridge, he attempted to board Train No. 14681, a run-through train that was not scheduled to stop at that station. His hand slipped while boarding, causing him to fall between the train and the platform; he sustained grievous injuries and later died.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim in OA/II/2017/0293 by judgment dated 15 December 2020, holding that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident.” The deceased’s claimants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased’s fall while attempting to board a run-through train that had no scheduled stoppage at Tilak Bridge constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger entitled the appellants to statutory compensation notwithstanding the circumstances in which he attempted to board the train.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from orders of the Tribunal.

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident” attracting the statutory compensation regime; however, the occurrence must fall within the statutory concept of an accidental fall during the course of a normal railway journey.

The Court also considered the exclusion relating to self-inflicted injury under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, although its ultimate decision rested on the finding that the incident was not an “untoward incident”.

The Court relied on Naresh Kumar v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6415, which held that an injury sustained while attempting to board a run-through train at a station where it had no scheduled stoppage was not covered as an “untoward incident”.

The Court accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because the journey ticket was on record and its authenticity had been admitted in the Railway’s DRM report.

However, that status did not make every consequence of his conduct compensable. The undisputed evidence showed that he attempted to board a moving run-through train that was not scheduled to halt at Tilak Bridge, rather than falling while boarding a train that had stopped there.

Applying the principle in Naresh Kumar, the Court held that the fatal fall occurred in the course of a conscious attempt to board a train at a place where it was not scheduled to stop.

It was therefore not an accidental fall during a normal journey within Section 123(c)(2), and the deceased’s bona fide passenger status was insufficient to alter that conclusion.

Finding no error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed the appeal and declined to grant compensation or any other relief.