Non-recovery of ticket and lack of eyewitness testimony fail to prove "untoward incident" over established railway run-over evidence.

The appellants (legal heirs of the deceased) filed a claim application under the Railways Act, 1989, alleging that on June 19, 2022, Sh. Kamlesh Kumar died following an "untoward incident".

They claimed the deceased purchased a ticket from Faridabad to Kanpur and fell from a running train near Lakadpur Railway Station due to a "push and pull" inside the compartment.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on March 6, 2025, holding the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an "untoward incident".

The appellants challenged this, arguing that the journey ticket was lost in a bag left on the train and relying on the testimony of a companion (AW-2) who dropped the deceased at the station.

The respondent (Railways) contended the deceased was a trespasser run over while crossing the tracks.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger as defined under the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the incident constitutes an "untoward incident" falling within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

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

Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which establishes that the mere non-recovery of a journey ticket from the body of the deceased does not, by itself, justify the rejection of a compensation claim.

The burden remains on the claimants to prove that the death resulted from a fall from a train rather than a "run-over" incident while trespassing on tracks.

The Court observed that the appellants failed to provide any eyewitness account of the alleged fall; the claimants' witnesses (AW-1 and AW-2) admitted during cross-examination they did not witness the ticket purchase or the incident.

Conversely, the respondent produced an eyewitness, Sh. Devender Kumar Saini (RW-1), a Gate Man, who testified that the deceased was struck while attempting to cross the closed railway line at Gate No. 579-B despite repeated warnings.

The Court found this testimony corroborated by the DRM Report, the RPF investigation report, and statutory inquiry records, all of which characterized the event as a "run-over" case.

The Court noted that while the MLC and post-mortem reports confirmed a "railway accident," they lacked specific findings indicative of a fall from a running train.

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, holding that the deceased was not a victim of an accidental fall from a train and dismissed the appeal.