Co-passenger testimony establishes bonafide passenger status and untoward incident over speculative railway reports.

The deceased, Suvidh Bharat Raut, died on March 29, 2012, after falling from a running train between Ulhasnagar and Ambernath Railway Stations

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) rejected the appellants' claim for compensation on March 22, 2019, on the grounds that the deceased was not a "bonafide passenger" and the death was not caused by an "untoward incident"

No ticket or valuables were found during the inquest panchanama

However, a co-passenger, Mr. Sandip Valvi, testified that the deceased had purchased two tickets for their travel and fell due to heavy rush

The Railway authorities contended the deceased was knocked down while crossing the tracks, based on the Station Master’s report and the nature of injuries

1. Whether the deceased was a "bonafide passenger" within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989

2. Whether the death occurred on account of an "untoward incident" as defined by the Railways Act, 1989

The Court applied the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, specifically regarding "untoward incidents"

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which established that the absence of a ticket does not automatically disqualify a deceased from being a bonafide passenger if there is evidence of purchase

It further followed the principle in Smt. Vijaya Pandit Sirsat & Another v. Union of India (2011), which dictates that reports from railway authorities who were not eyewitnesses cannot be used to conclude that a deceased was crossing tracks

The Court found the RCT’s conclusion regarding "bonafide passenger" status erroneous.

It held that the co-passenger’s affidavit confirming the purchase of tickets was credible, noting that tickets are easily lost during a fall or the subsequent transport of the body

Regarding the nature of the incident, the Court observed that the Railway produced no eyewitnesses to support the theory that the deceased was crossing the tracks

It determined that the Station Master's and Police reports were mere opinions of non-experts

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Tribunal is not an expert body qualified to infer the cause of death (e.g., track crossing) solely from the nature of injuries in the absence of medical expert testimony or eyewitness accounts

The uncontroverted evidence of the co-passenger regarding the "heavy rush" was sufficient to prove an untoward incident

It held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death resulted from an untoward incident

The Court directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the accident until payment, subject to a maximum cap of Rs. 8,00,000/-

The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants