Death while attempting to board a train constitutes an untoward incident absent intentional self-injury.

On 24 November 2012, Santosh Kumar purchased a valid second-class superfast railway ticket from Kudal to Ahmedabad. The ticket was recovered from him and its validity was not disputed.

The appellants’ case was that, after reaching Mumbai Central, he attempted to board Train No. 59439 for Ahmedabad and fell from the moving train after a sudden jerk, sustaining fatal injuries.

The railway authorities’ version was that, while Train No. 59439 was being placed on Platform No. 1, Santosh Kumar was either crossing the railway line or attempting to board the empty rake and was hit by it.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding, inter alia, that he was not a bona fide passenger because his ticket prescribed a route via Dadar, whereas he was found at Mumbai Central.

The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite being found at Mumbai Central rather than changing trains at Dadar, the route indicated on his valid ticket?

Whether the deceased’s death, occurring while he was allegedly attempting to board or otherwise coming into contact with a train, constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the claim was excluded under the proviso to Section 124-A on the ground of the deceased’s alleged negligence or self-inflicted injury?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents” and statutory liability for compensation.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that the claimant’s initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous and that death or injury sustained while boarding or de-boarding a train constitutes an untoward incident; mere negligence is insufficient to invoke the statutory exclusions, and “self-inflicted injury” requires an intention to cause injury.

The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, which reiterated the limited initial burden resting on claimants to establish the foundational facts of passenger status.

The recovery of a valid Kudal–Ahmedabad ticket discharged the appellants’ initial burden of establishing that Santosh Kumar was a bona fide passenger.

Although the ticket indicated a route via Dadar, the Court held that his presence at Mumbai Central did not prove that he had abandoned the journey or was travelling without a ticket.

The onward journey could reasonably have been continued from Mumbai Central, and Train No. 59439 was available there.

As to the nature of the incident, the variations between the inquest report, the DRM Report, and the appellants’ account did not defeat the claim.

Even accepting the railway’s version that the deceased was attempting to board the train, Rina Devi treated injury or death during boarding as an untoward incident.

The evidence did not establish any intention on the deceased’s part to cause himself injury, and negligence alone could not attract the exclusion under Section 124-A.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 31 October 2018 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 High Court’s order.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of; the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 5 October 2026.