Run-over or trespass cannot be inferred merely from a body found near railway tracks absent direct evidence.

Rinku Kumar, the deceased, was travelling from Ghaziabad to Sadar Bazar on 7 March 2019 on a second-class railway ticket.

The appellants claimed that, owing to heavy rush and a sudden jerk in the moving train, he lost his balance, fell from the train and sustained fatal injuries.

A journey ticket bearing No. UAC-81812401 was recovered from his person and was verified by the Northern Railway as having been issued from Ghaziabad to Sadar Bazar on 7 March 2019 at 18:28 hours.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding that the deceased had been run over by a goods train while crossing the railway track and that the incident was not an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The claimants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989, in view of the journey ticket recovered from him and subsequently verified by the Railways.

2. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, or whether the evidence established that he was run over while trespassing or crossing the railway track.

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim on the basis of the location of the body and the nature of the injuries, without direct evidence establishing the manner of occurrence.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents” and statutory compensation for death or injury arising therefrom.

[object Object]

[object Object]

[object Object]

The Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because the journey ticket recovered from him had been independently verified by the Railways, confirming travel from Ghaziabad to Sadar Bazar on the date of the occurrence.

The Tribunal’s view that this issue became irrelevant after finding that the incident was not untoward was legally unsustainable.

On the second issue, the Court found that neither the Station Master’s memo, panchnama, nor any eyewitness or railway official established that the deceased was crossing the track.

The fact that the body was found on Coaching Line No. 2 did not exclude the possibility that he had fallen from the passenger train onto the adjoining line, particularly since the site plan did not conclusively establish otherwise.

Further, the statements of the goods-train driver and guard did not show that the goods train had struck or run over the deceased.

Since the Railways failed to prove trespass, run-over, or any exception under the proviso to Section 124-A—such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication or commission of a criminal act—the Tribunal’s conclusion rested on conjecture rather than evidence.

The Tribunal’s finding that the death did not arise from an untoward incident was therefore unsustainable.

The impugned judgment dated 18 November 2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.