Holder of valid platform ticket is a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation for untoward incidents.

The appellants’ son, Anmolkumar Rajeshbhai Shah, died on May 28, 2022, after falling at Nadiad Railway Station while attempting to alight from Train No. 22927 (Lokshakti Express)

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the original petition (OA/2022/0071) on June 20, 2024, on the grounds that the deceased was not a "bona fide passenger" because he only possessed a platform ticket and not a travel ticket, and that the incident constituted a "self-inflicted injury" under the proviso to Section 124A

The claimants challenged this dismissal via a first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act

1. Whether a person holding a valid platform ticket falls within the definition of a "bona fide passenger" under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

2. Whether an injury sustained while attempting to de-board a running train amounts to a "self-inflicted injury" (criminal act) or an "untoward incident"

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an "untoward incident" as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train

Section 124A, specifically the explanation which provides that a "passenger" includes a person holding a valid platform ticket

The principle of "strict liability" established in Jameela v. Union of India, which clarifies that negligence (like standing at an open door) does not equate to a "criminal act" or "self-inflicted injury" unless malicious intent or mens rea is proven

Shrikumar Gupta & Anr. v. Union of India (2025), holding that no sane person intends to fall, and the burden of proving a "self-inflicted injury" plea lies on the Railway

Regarding passenger status, the court noted that under the inclusive definition in Section 124A, a platform ticket holder is a "bona fide passenger"

Regarding the nature of the accident, the court observed that while attempting to alight from a running train may be a negligent or rash act, it does not constitute a "self-inflicted injury" or a "criminal act" under the proviso to Section 124A

The court emphasized that Section 124A imposes "no-fault liability" on the Railways; thus, unless the Railway proves the act was intentional or malicious, they cannot evade the claim

The court further noted that the DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) report failed to offer concrete proof of a jump with suicidal intent, rendering the death an "untoward incident"

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an untoward incident

The Railway Claim Tribunal was directed to provide the statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the incident until realization