Recovery of Valid Ticket and Bodies Found on Tracks Establishes Untoward Incident Absent Strict Evidence of Trespass

On February 7, 2018, the deceased (Shahid) purchased a journey ticket from Garhi Harsaru to Hathras Junction.

While traveling toward Hathras on February 8, 2018, he allegedly fell from Train No. 54462 near Pora and died on the spot.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on December 5, 2019, ruling that the death was a "run-over" case and not an "untoward incident," while failing to rule on the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger.

The Appellants challenged this, citing the recovery of a valid ticket and the lack of evidence supporting a "run-over" theory.

1. Whether the death of the deceased constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

The Court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establish strict liability for the Railways in cases of "untoward incidents," defined to include accidental falls from a train.

It relied on the precedent in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, which clarifies that accidental falling during boarding, alighting, or travel is covered under the Act.

the Court applied the principle from Union of India v. Rina Devi, holding that once foundational facts of bona fide travel (such as possession of a ticket) are established, the burden of proof shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.

The Court observed that the body was found on the tracks and a valid journey ticket (No. L-78484240) was recovered from the deceased's person, as recorded in the Railways' own DRM report.

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s finding of a "run-over" case as purely inferential, noting there were no eyewitnesses, no loco-pilot testimony of a person on the tracks, and no medical evidence exclusively proving a run-over or ruling out a fall.

The Court reasoned that in the absence of evidence of trespass, suicide, or criminal acts, the "strict liability" framework must apply.

It further found the sequence of travel—boarding at Garhi Harsaru and changing at Aligarh—to be entirely consistent with the location of the body near Pora on the route to Hathras.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to calculate and disburse compensation to the Appellants within two months. The appeal was allowed.