Walking Between Railway Tracks Resulting in Run-Over Deceased Does Not Constitute an Untoward Incident

On May 29, 2023, the deceased (Sh. Govind) was allegedly traveling from Taj Nagar to Sarai Rohilla.

The appellants claimed that due to a heavy rush, the deceased accidentally fell from a running train and was subsequently struck by another train (No. 14731) on the adjoining track, leading to fatal injuries.

A journey ticket was recovered from the deceased.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on May 9, 2025, ruling that the incident was not an "untoward incident" and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

The appellants challenged this, asserting an accidental fall.

Conversely, the respondent relied on the testimony of the loco pilot (RW-1) and the DRM report, which suggested the deceased was a trespasser run over while walking on the tracks.

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

Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased resulted from an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989.

The court primarily applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 regarding the right to appeal.

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

Furthermore, the court considered the statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, noting that compensation is contingent upon the occurrence of an "untoward incident".

The court found the appellants' version of an "accidental fall" lacked evidentiary support, as the primary witness (AW-1) admitted she was not an eyewitness and was unaware the deceased was even traveling.

Furthermore, the claim application failed to specify the train number.

In contrast, the court prioritized the testimony of the loco pilot of Train No. 14731 (RW-1), who provided a consistent account of seeing the deceased walking between the tracks and attempting to apply emergency brakes—a "run-over" scenario.

This testimony was corroborated by the DRM report and official railway records.

The court reasoned that since the evidence pointed to the deceased walking on the tracks rather than falling from a train, the foundational requirement of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) was not met.

Even if the deceased possessed a valid ticket, the lack of an accidental fall precluded liability under Section 124-A. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld. The court also condoned an 8-day filing delay via CM APPL. 59152/2025.