Boarding the wrong train does not forfeit compensation as a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act.

The deceased was travelling from Surat and intended to proceed to his native place at Darbhanga. Owing to his lack of familiarity with the train details, he allegedly boarded the wrong train.

On 21 February 2017, he fell from Train No. 14805, Barmer AC Express, near LC Gate No. 173 at Survadi Signal, Ankleshwar, suffered serious injuries, and died during treatment at Civil Hospital, Bharuch.

The claimant, his brother, filed a claim under the Railways Act, 1989, asserting that the journey ticket had been lost in the accident and that he was dependent on the deceased.

The Railway Claims Tribunal held the claimant to be a dependent under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act but dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased had boarded the wrong train and was negligent.

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

Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger on a valid railway journey ticket and whether the fact that he boarded the wrong train disentitled the claimant from compensation?

Whether the deceased’s fall from the running train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the Railway Administration established that the incident resulted from the deceased’s own negligence or fell within an exception to the Railway Administration’s liability?

Whether the claimant was a dependent entitled to maintain the compensation claim?

The Court applied Sections 123(b) and 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, under which a dependent may claim compensation and an accidental fall of a passenger from a train constitutes an “untoward incident.”

The Court relied on Shrikumar Gupta & Anr. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115, which held that merely boarding the wrong train does not, by itself, make a passenger non-bona fide or absolve the Railways from liability; an allegation that the passenger deliberately jumped or alighted from the running train must be proved by the Railway Administration.

The Court further relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, which requires a liberal and purposive interpretation of “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” and recognises the principle of strict liability under the Railways Act, subject to the statutory exceptions.

The beneficial-object principle requires railway-compensation provisions to receive a liberal rather than narrow or technical construction.

The Tribunal had already found the claimant to be a dependent under Section 123(b).

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim solely because the deceased had boarded the wrong train was inconsistent with the law declared in Shrikumar Gupta; an inadvertent mistake in boarding a train does not, without more, negate bona fide passenger status.

The Railway Administration did not establish that the deceased intentionally jumped from the train, attempted suicide, or otherwise caused the incident through conduct falling within a statutory exclusion.

The Court therefore treated the fall from the running train as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), applying the beneficial and purposive interpretation mandated in Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar.

Consequently, the Tribunal’s finding of self-negligence was held to be unsupported and legally erroneous.

It held the claimant entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.

The Railway Administration was granted eight weeks to deposit the amount, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse it to the claimant(s) by account-payee cheque, NEFT, or RTGS following identification and verification.

Any connected civil application was disposed of as not surviving.