Railways cannot deny compensation for a bona fide passenger’s accidental fall on unsubstantiated trespass allegations.

The appellants, the deceased’s parents, claimed compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, after their son Rahul died on 22 March 2015 from injuries sustained between Ghansoli and Rabale railway stations.

The inquest panchanama recorded that he had fallen from an unknown local train and that a railway ticket was found on his person.

The Railway’s DRM report, relying on a Station Master’s memo, stated that the incident might have occurred while he was crossing the tracks.

The Tribunal accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger but dismissed the claim, finding that the appellants had not proved that he fell from a train.

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

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid railway ticket

Whether the deceased died after accidentally falling from a train or after being struck by a train while trespassing on the tracks

Whether the death resulted from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and whether any exception under Section 124A applied

What compensation and other relief the appellants were entitled to

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act defines an “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of a passenger from a train; Section 124A imposes liability for such an incident irrespective of railway fault, subject to the listed exceptions, including the passenger’s own criminal act.

Section 2(29) defines a passenger as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.

Under Jameela v. Union of India, negligence in falling from a train does not by itself defeat compensation, and a railway assertion about the manner of a fall cannot rest on speculation.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, interest may be awarded from the date of the accident, and the applicable compensation is assessed by comparing the amount with the prescribed compensation.

Railway records admissible under Section 191 are not conclusive proof of their contents; their reliability and probative value must be judicially assessed.

The Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, together with the ticket recorded in the inquest panchanama, supported the claim.

The panchanama recorded a fall from a local train, while the DRM report stated only that the incident might have occurred while the deceased was crossing the tracks.

In the absence of eyewitness evidence or other reliable proof, the report and memo did not establish trespass or that the deceased was struck by a train; nor could the Tribunal determine the cause from its own assessment of the injuries.

The Railways therefore failed to establish a basis to deny compensation under Section 124A, and negligence alone would not bar recovery.

It awarded the appellants ₹8,14,641, to be divided equally between them, and directed the Railways to deposit the amount in their bank accounts within eight weeks after receiving their bank details.

Any delay beyond that period would attract further interest at 9% per annum until payment.