Run-over While Crossing Railway Tracks Does Not Constitute an "Untoward Incident" Under the Railways Act

The Appellants challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dated 15.11.2019, which dismissed their claim for compensation following the death of Sh. Ankush Kumar (the "deceased")

The Appellants alleged that on 27.11.2015, the deceased, while traveling from Saharanpur to Shamli on Train No. 14546, fell accidentally from the running train due to heavy rush and sustained fatal injuries

The Respondent (Union of India) contested this, relying on the Loco Pilot’s statement and the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report, which suggested the deceased was hit while trespassing on the tracks

1. Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were on account of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?

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

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

Section 124-A of the Act, which establishes the strict liability of the Railways to pay compensation for death or injuries in such incidents, provided the victim is a bona fide passenger

Supreme Court precedent Union of India v. Rina Devi, which clarifies that while strict proof of a ticket is not always required to prove bona fide status, foundational facts must be established by the claimants

The Court found that the Appellants' version of an "accidental fall" relied solely on the testimony of AW-2 (Deepak Malik), whose presence was uncorroborated and contradicted by official records

The Court placed high evidentiary value on the Loco Pilot’s statement—made in the discharge of official duty—which recorded that the deceased was coming from the "wrong side" and was hit by the engine

This was corroborated by the DRM report and contemporaneous railway records indicating the case was a "run-over" while crossing the tracks, rather than a fall from the train. The Court reasoned that since the evidence established a "run-over" incident, it did not meet the statutory definition of an "untoward incident"

Consequently, the statutory liability under Section 124-A did not arise. The Court found it unnecessary to determine the bona fide passenger status of the deceased as the primary ground for the claim failed. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's judgment was upheld