Crossing railway tracks and being hit by a train does not constitute an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act.

The Appellant’s son allegedly died after falling from a moving train between Bhayandar and Nallasopara on 5 August 2006.

The deceased was initially taken to a private hospital and subsequently to K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, where he died on 10 August 2006.

The incident was not reported to the Station Master or police on the day of occurrence.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on February 23, 2015, ruling that the death was not an "untoward incident" and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

The medical records at K.E.M. Hospital, based on information provided by the deceased’s companion, Mr. Sachin Jewekar, at the first instance, stated the deceased was hit by a train while crossing the tracks.

1. Whether the death of the deceased qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the deceased was a "bonafide passenger" at the time of the incident.

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an "untoward incident" primarily as an accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

The Court relied on the evidentiary principle that statements made at the "first available instance" carry higher probative value than subsequent, contradictory versions provided during later police investigations or inquest panchanamas.

The Court examined the discrepancy between the initial medical report and subsequent police documents.

It noted that when the deceased was admitted to K.E.M. Hospital on 5 August 2006, his companion, Mr. Jewekar, informed the authorities that the injury resulted from being hit while crossing the railway tracks.

The Court rejected the later versions (inquest panchanama and police report dated 8 and 10 August) where the witness changed his stand to claim a fall from a moving train, characterizing these as subsequent afterthoughts.

It held that the hospital records, being the earliest documentation, were more authentic.

Applying these facts to the law, the Court reasoned that being "knocked down while crossing a railway track" does not constitute an "accidental fall" and thus fails to meet the statutory definition of an "untoward incident".

The Court held that since the incident resulted from crossing the tracks rather than falling from a train, it was not an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the deceased's status as a "bonafide passenger," as both conditions must be met to sustain a claim.

All pending interim applications were disposed of accordingly.