Contemporaneous records of "man run over" outweigh claimant’s version to negate "untoward incident" under Railway Act.

The appellant filed a claim seeking compensation for grievous injuries, including the amputation of both legs, following an incident on 11.03.2024 involving Train No. 14218 (Unchahar Express).

The appellant alleged he accidentally fell from the moving train due to a heavy rush after purchasing a ticket from Panipat to Delhi.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (Principal Bench, Delhi) dismissed the claim on 29.04.2025, finding that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was not an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act.

The appellant appealed this dismissal, along with an application to condone a 200-day delay in filing.

1. Whether the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned given the appellant's socio-economic status.

2. Whether the appellant established his status as a *bona fide* passenger despite no ticket being recovered during *jamatalashi* (search).

3. Whether the injuries resulted from an "untoward incident" (accidental fall) or a "man run over" (MRO) case excluded from compensation.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, regarding the right to appeal.

For condonation of delay, the Court relied on *Mohsina v. Union of India*, which emphasizes considering the socio-economic conditions of claimants in beneficial legislation.

Regarding the burden of proof for *bona fide* passengers, the Court cited *Union of India v. Rina Devi*, establishing that a claimant’s affidavit can discharge the initial burden.

and *Rajni v. Union of India*, reaffirming that the initial burden of lawful travel lies with the claimant.

The definitions and exclusions for "untoward incidents" under the Railways Act were central to the determination of liability.

Regarding the delay, the Court exercised leniency, noting the appellant’s financial constraints and the beneficial nature of the statute.

On the merits, the Court contrasted the appellant's testimony with that of the Assistant Loco Pilot (RW-1).

RW-1 testified that the appellant intentionally lay down on the tracks in front of the train, an account contemporaneous with official records marked "MRO" (man run over) and the Station Master's memo.

The Court found the railway's evidence highly credible due to its proximity in time to the accident (recorded within one month) and the lack of successful rebuttal during cross-examination.

While the Court noted that the initial burden regarding passenger status could potentially be met by the appellant’s deposition as per *Rina Devi*, it concluded that such status was moot because the incident was a "run over" case rather than an "accidental fall," thereby failing to qualify as an "untoward incident."

The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in relying on the Loco Pilot’s testimony and contemporaneous railway records which categorized the incident as a "man run over" rather than an accidental fall.

Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to compensation as the event did not constitute an "untoward incident."

The appeal was dismissed.