Facts
The appellants’ case was that Vikas Kumar, a regular commuter holding a valid Monthly Season Ticket, fell from Train No. 14681 near Shivaji Bridge on 19 October 2019 and sustained fatal injuries
Source reference: p.1–2The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that he had attempted to board a moving train and that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident”
Source reference: p.2The appellants appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
Source reference: p.1Issues
1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger
Source reference: p.2, para. 32. Whether his fall while attempting to board a moving train that was passing through Shivaji Bridge without a scheduled halt constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989
Source reference: p.2, paras. 3–5; p.3–4, paras. 7–11Law Applied
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 concerns an accidental fall from a passenger train; whether an occurrence falls within that provision depends on the facts established in the particular case
Source reference: p.3, para. 8A claimant’s status as a bona fide passenger does not, by itself, make every resulting occurrence an “untoward incident”
Source reference: p.3, para. 7; p.4, para. 11The Court relied on *Gyan Prakash @ Bhushan & Anr. v Union of India*, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7191, for the proposition that a fall resulting from a conscious attempt to board a moving run-through train not scheduled to stop at the station may fall outside Section 123(c)(2)
Source reference: p.4, para. 10The Court also considered *Union of India v Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar*, (2008) 9 SCC 527, cited by the appellants
Source reference: p.2, para. 4Reasoning
The Court accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because the DRM Report acknowledged the validity of his season ticket, but held that this did not resolve whether the occurrence was an “untoward incident”
Source reference: p.3, para. 7The eyewitness account was that the deceased and his companion tried to board Train No. 14681 as it passed the station; one boarded, while the deceased fell between the train and platform
Source reference: p.3, para. 8The train was a run-through train not scheduled to halt at Shivaji Bridge
Source reference: p.3–4, paras. 9–10Applying *Gyan Prakash*, the Court distinguished an accidental fall during a normal railway journey from a fall resulting from an attempt to board a moving train that was not scheduled to stop
Source reference: p.4, paras. 10–12Holding
The Court held that the occurrence proved on the record did not fall within the statutory description of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), and found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision
The appeal was dismissed
Source reference: p.5, para. 14Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19871
Railways Act, 19891
Original Court PDF
M/S Associated Trading Company (Petrol Pump)vsSanjay Rana Through Its Lrs Smt Neelam Wife Of Late Sanjay Rana & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
