Unsubstantiated suicide allegations cannot defeat compensation for a bona fide passenger’s accidental fall from a train.

On 26 August 2022, Mukesh Kumar travelled from Ahmedabad to Surat by Train No. 22954 with a valid railway ticket. He allegedly fell from the running train between Gothaj and Nadiad Railway Stations at K.M. No. 458/02, sustained fatal injuries, and died during treatment.

His parents filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, seeking compensation of ₹8,00,000. The Railway Administration contended, on the basis of its DRM report and the evidence of the goods-train Loco Pilot, that the deceased had intentionally jumped from the passenger train and committed suicide, thereby attracting the exclusion under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal rejected the Railway’s defence and awarded ₹8,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the incident. The Union of India challenged that decision 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’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, or whether he had intentionally jumped from the train and committed suicide, thereby excluding the Railway’s liability under Section 124A.

Whether the claimants, being the deceased’s parents and dependants, were entitled to compensation under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹8,00,000 with interest required appellate interference.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, death or injury caused by an untoward incident involving a bona fide railway passenger may attract statutory compensation, subject to the exclusions contemplated by Section 124A, including an established act of suicide or self-inflicted injury.

Section 123(b) identifies the relevant dependants entitled to claim compensation.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that the Railway Administration bears the burden of establishing the statutory exclusion on reliable and convincing evidence; a merely inconclusive or internally inconsistent claim of suicide is insufficient to defeat a compensation claim.

The deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger was established through the valid journey tickets and was not disputed by the Railway Administration.

The Railway relied principally on the Loco Pilot’s testimony, but the Court found that his evidence was inconsistent with his report and did not conclusively establish that the deceased had intentionally jumped with the purpose of committing suicide.

The RPF officer also admitted that the investigation did not establish suicide and that no complaint had been filed alleging an intentional suicidal jump.

Conversely, the co-passenger’s evidence that the deceased had gone towards the coach door to answer a call of nature supported accidental falling, while the post-mortem observations were considered consistent with that theory and inconsistent with the Railway’s suicide claim.

Accordingly, the statutory exclusion under Section 124A was not proved, and the Tribunal’s finding that the death arose from an untoward incident warranted no interference.

The Railway Administration was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount in the claimants’ account through RTGS or NEFT. Any interim relief stood vacated, and the connected civil application, if any, was disposed of as having become infructuous.