Passenger testimony and police records can establish an untoward incident despite minor inconsistencies.

The appellants, the deceased’s wife and other claimants, sought compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act after Somnath Roy died following a fall from a moving train on 27 November 2021.

The claimants’ case was that Roy and his wife were returning by train when he fell near the railway track between Palta and Ichapore; two journey tickets were allegedly recovered from his body.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the applicants had not proved that Roy was travelling on the train or that his death resulted from a fall from it, and questioning whether the tickets belonged to him.

The claimants appealed.

1. Whether the evidence established that Roy’s death resulted from an untoward incident involving a fall from a moving train.

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act notwithstanding the Tribunal’s findings concerning proof of travel and the journey tickets.

Section 124A of the Railways Act provides the statutory basis for compensation for death resulting from an untoward incident.

The Court considered the evidentiary question by assessing the claimants’ account alongside corroborative material, including the police inquest and final report, the statement made by the deceased’s brother to the RPF, and the seizure of journey tickets.

It referred to Kharka Bahadur Chettri v. Union of India for the proposition that the circumstances surrounding recovery of a body, including the victim’s residence and connection to the locality, may bear on whether the death resulted from a fall from a train or from being struck while crossing the tracks.

The Court accepted the wife’s evidence that she and Roy boarded the train together and found that her account was not materially shaken in cross-examination; it was also corroborated by the brother’s statement to the RPF.

The inquest report and police final report further supported the claimants’ account.

Although the wife’s accounts differed as to where she went after the incident, the Court treated that discrepancy as non-fatal in light of the traumatic circumstances and the established fact that she travelled with Roy.

It also held that the police seizure list recording recovery of two tickets could not be disbelieved merely because a police officer, rather than a member of the public, signed it; the investigation’s conclusions should not be rejected as perfunctory without examining the investigating officer.

On the evidence as a whole, the Court found that Roy died in an untoward incident.

It held that the appellants were entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim was filed until the date of judgment.

The Railway Authority was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks of communication of the order, and the appellants could withdraw it upon completing the necessary formalities.