Non-recovery of a railway ticket alone cannot defeat compensation for an accidental train fall.

The appellants, comprising the widow and minor children of Kamal Kishore Kataria, challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 20.08.2019 dismissing their claim for compensation arising from his death.

The deceased was allegedly travelling from Delhi towards Ghaziabad by train on 31.03.2018 when he accidentally fell from the train near Anand Vihar Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries; his body was later found near the railway track on the Ghaziabad side.

The Tribunal rejected the claim principally because no railway ticket was recovered and the precise train involved was not identified.

The appellants relied on the widow’s affidavit, police records, DD Entry No. 14A, the Station Master’s memo and the seizure memo, which referred to a train accident.

The High Court first condoned the 59-day delay in filing the appeal.

Whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of a railway ticket or other travel authority.

Whether the death was attributable to an “untoward incident”, namely, an accidental fall from a passenger train under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, despite the absence of eyewitness testimony and identification of the precise train.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim on the basis of the absence of a ticket and the inability to establish the exact manner of the fall.

The appeal was maintainable under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers constitutes an “untoward incident” attracting the Railways’ statutory strict liability, subject to the exceptions expressly provided in Section 124-A.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, and Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350, the Court held that the claimant’s initial burden is not unduly onerous; once the relevant facts and circumstances are placed on record, the burden shifts to the Railways, and non-recovery of a ticket is not by itself conclusive against the claim.

In claims involving accidental falls, the occurrence may be established through attending circumstances and contemporaneous records even without eyewitness evidence.

The Court held that the widow’s sworn statement that the deceased had boarded a train from Delhi to Ghaziabad and that his ticket and belongings were lost in the accident could not be rejected merely because she was not travelling with him.

The Railways failed to rebut this evidence and relied mainly on the non-recovery of the ticket and the DRM report; consequently, the deceased was to be treated as a bona fide passenger.

The contemporaneous DD entry and seizure memo recorded the death as occurring in a train accident, and the surrounding circumstances consistently supported an accidental fall.

The absence of an eyewitness, identification of the exact train, or proof of the precise mechanics of the fall was not fatal, particularly because such incidents commonly occur without witnesses.

There was also no evidence of suicide, deliberate entry onto the track, or self-inflicted injury so as to attract an exception under Section 124-A.

The Tribunal therefore imposed an unduly onerous burden on the claimants and its rejection of the claim was unsupported by the record.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 20.08.2019 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct disbursement by the concerned authorities within two months of receiving the order.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of; the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 25.09.2026.