Evidence recorded before the Tribunal outweighs police statements in applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities.

On 26.08.2010, the deceased, Shri Subin Babu Christian, died following a railway incident involving Train No. 6201 near Chikikabanawar Railway Station

The claimants (parents) filed for compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Initially, the Tribunal granted ₹4 lakhs in 2014, but the High Court remanded the matter in 2017 to allow the Railways to file a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report

Upon fresh consideration, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, relying on police statements suggesting the deceased died while crossing the tracks rather than falling from a train, and noting the absence of a travel ticket

1. Whether the deceased was a "bona fide passenger" despite the non-recovery of a physical ticket from the body

2. Whether the death resulted from an "untoward incident" (falling from a train) under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1889

3. Whether evidence recorded before the Tribunal holds higher evidentiary value than prior police statements

The court primarily applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establishes a "no-fault liability" regime for untoward incidents

Union of India v. Rina Devi and Rajni v. Union of India [2025 Live Law (SC) 986], which established that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate a claim if the claimant provides a credible affidavit, shifting the onus to the Railways

Principle from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari [2021 ACJ 2558], holding that testimony on oath before a Tribunal prevails over versions found in an FIR or police statements

The Court found the DRM report irrelevant as it was filed four years late, violating Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003

Applying the "preponderance of probabilities," the Court noted that the Railways' cross-examination of the claimant actually supported the fact that a ticket was purchased for ₹70

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s reliance on police statements (claiming the deceased was crossing the tracks), noting these statements were never confronted to the witnesses during the trial

The Court used medical logic, observing that if the deceased had been run over while crossing, the body would likely be mutilated; however, the body was found intact, supporting the hypothesis of a fall from a running train

The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation requires a non-technical approach to social justice

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident

The Court ordered the Union of India to pay compensation of ₹4 lakhs with 9% interest from the date of the accident, or a flat sum of ₹8 lakhs, whichever is higher, to be deposited within eight weeks