Injury patterns alone do not prove track-crossing or negate an accidental fall.

Devender Kumar Soni died in a railway incident on 18 July 2012. A New Delhi–New Town Faridabad ticket was recovered from his personal search. The claimants alleged that he fell from a crowded EMU train after a sudden jerk; the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the compensation claim, finding that he had been run over while crossing the tracks.

The claimants appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger

Whether his death resulted from an accidental fall from a train constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train may constitute an “untoward incident”.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant’s initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status is not onerous; it may be discharged through relevant facts and surrounding circumstances, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim with cogent evidence. The Court also relied on Lata v. Union of India and Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India for a non-technical assessment of evidence in railway-claim cases.

The Court further applied Prempal Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Smt. Pratima Devi for the principle that the nature or extent of injuries, including a severed body, does not by itself establish that the deceased was crossing the tracks.

The recovered journey ticket, considered with the other travel tickets found on the deceased, sufficiently discharged the claimants’ initial burden to establish bona fide passenger status; the Railways led no oral evidence to rebut those circumstances.

The Station Master’s memo confirmed a fatal train-related incident but did not say that the deceased was crossing the tracks. Nor did the post-mortem report or other medical evidence establish that the injuries could only have resulted from his being run over while crossing. The police report’s reference to a fall from an unknown running train was relevant, though not conclusive. In the absence of an eyewitness or cogent evidence of track-crossing, the Tribunal could not infer that circumstance from the injuries and condition of the body alone.

On the evidence as a whole, and applying the beneficial purpose of the Act, the Court found an accidental fall more probable.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess compensation and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the order. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 19 January 2027; the appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.