Contemporaneous records prevail over subsequent testimonial improvements when determining untoward incidents under the Railways Act.

On 26.04.2023, Sh. Sompal (the deceased) was traveling from Haridwar to Moradabad with a valid ticket.

He allegedly fell from a running train between Nagina and Puraini Railway Stations, sustained injuries, and was subsequently run over by another train.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dismissed the appellants' claim on 10.09.2024, concluding the deceased committed suicide and was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an "untoward incident".

The Tribunal relied on a DRM report and an affidavit by the loco pilot (RW-1) asserting the deceased jumped in front of a goods train.

The appellants challenged this, noting that a valid journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the loco pilot’s initial memo did not mention suicide.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989?

2. Whether the incident in question constitutes an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

The Court primarily applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which mandates strict liability for compensation in cases of "untoward incidents," subject to specific exceptions like suicide or self-inflicted injury.

It relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, establishing that once a ticket is found on a deceased, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide travel.

Furthermore, it cited Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, which held that Section 124-A is beneficial legislation and must be construed liberally.

The Court found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because a valid journey ticket (No. UAF 02392738) was recovered from his person and verified by the booking office.

Regarding the nature of the incident, the Court observed that contemporaneous records—including the Station Master’s memo and RPF daily diary—described the event only as a “run over” (MRO) and did not mention suicide.

The Court noted that the loco pilot (RW-1) introduced the "jumping" allegation for the first time in his affidavit, which contradicted his own initial written memo.

Consequently, the DRM report’s conclusion of suicide was deemed unsubstantiated by direct evidence.

The Court reasoned that in the absence of cogent evidence of suicide, the version of an accidental fall from a running train followed by being run over was more probable and consistent with the record.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and allowed the appeal. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation amount and direct its disbursement within two months. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 06.04.2026.