Death after deboarding and being run over constitutes an untoward incident absent cogent proof of voluntary track entry.

Lalchand, the deceased, was travelling from Kanpur Central to Surat on Train No. 19038, Awadh Assam Express, on a valid journey ticket.

When the train stopped at Balrai Railway Station on 10 June 2019, he and other passengers allegedly deboarded from the off-side of the train after being directed or pushed by the TTE to move or change coaches.

They thereafter fell or came onto the adjacent track and were run over by Train No. 12313, Rajdhani Express.

Four claim applications arising from the incident were consolidated, with the present claim treated as the leading case.

The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger but dismissed the claim on the ground that the death did not result from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The claimants challenged that finding under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased’s death, after he came onto the railway track and was run over by another train, constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the deceased had voluntarily deboarded from the off-side of the train and thereafter walked along the track.

What relief and consequential directions were required upon determination of the above issues.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal, and Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents”.

It accepted that a bona fide passenger’s death in circumstances falling within an untoward incident may attract statutory railway compensation.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, as cited by the appellants.

It also relied upon Gyasu And Anr. v. Divisional Railway Manager And Anr., where it was held that deboarding from the wrong side, negligence, or involvement in an accident while crossing the track does not, by itself, establish that the deceased died due to his own criminal act.

The Court further held that a conclusion of voluntary deboarding and walking along the track must be supported by cogent evidence and cannot be inferred merely from the subsequent location of the bodies.

The deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger was conclusively established, as the Tribunal had so found and the respondent had not challenged that finding.

Although the record established that he was run over by the Rajdhani Express, the DRM report’s conclusion that he had voluntarily deboarded and was walking along the track was not supported by direct or cogent evidence.

Neither the locomotive pilot nor the TTE stated that they had witnessed the deceased voluntarily leaving the train and proceeding along the track.

The evidence of the accompanying witnesses varied as to whether the passengers were pushed out or deboarded themselves, but that inconsistency did not conclusively establish voluntary entry onto the track, particularly in light of the claim that the passengers had been directed to change coaches.

Applying the principle in Gyasu, the Court held that even wrong-side deboarding or negligent conduct would not, without more, take the incident outside the statutory concept of an untoward incident.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s inference that the deceased had voluntarily gone upon the track was held unsustainable.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 24 February 2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the judgment.

The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with the matter directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 16 September 2026.