The judgment establishes the interpretation and application of the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the criteria for determining a bonafide passenger under the Act.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2012, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (in short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim application filed by the present appellants was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that Gurjeet Singh (since deceased) son of the present appellants had gone to Delhi on 20.5.2007 for some work of his employer, namely, Punjab Crockery House, Amloh, Khanna. On 22.5.2007, when the deceased was returning from Delhi by train No. 5707 Up, he accidentally fell down from the said train near Gate No. 145-C, near Railway Station Sirhind. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. On the memo issued by the Station Master, Sirhind to GRP, inquest proceedings were conducted and it was found to be railway accident as a result of fall from the train. The deceased was travelling in 2nd class compartment and had a valid journey ticket, which got lost during untoward incident as the luggage and bag of the deceased could not be recovered. It is further stated that it has been held by the Courts that it is the duty of the Railways/respondent to prove that the alleged incident was not a untoward incident as mentioned in Section 124-A read with Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time of untoward incident.

3. In the written statement, respondent took the plea that the accident did not take place, as alleged. A perusal of the injuries/body condition of the deceased reveal that the body was cut into small pieces. It is the common law of physics that an object falling from a moving object say train/bus etc. would fall away and move away further and under no circumstances, it will come under the running train.

4. From the pleadings, following issues were framed:--

"1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of incident?

2. Whether the incident is covered within ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?

4. Relief."

5. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased was found travelling on a particular train. Instead, there is evidence that the deceased got entangled with the train and dragged upto Gate No. 145-B. He was run over by the train and he died at the spot. It was further held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the incident does not fall within the ambit of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Reference is also made to the copy of extract of untoward incident register of the Railway Station, Sirhind and DRM report. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the lower Court file.

7. Untoward incident is defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under:--

"Section 123

(a) and (b) xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

[(c)(1)(i) to (iii) xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]"

8. Therefore, the definition made it clear that the accidental falling from any train carrying passengers is covered under the definition of 'untoward incident'. In Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger is defined as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of untoward incident.

9. The Tribunal has taken the view that the deceased was dragged by the train upto Gate No. 145-C, struck with the gate's check rail and fell down on up line and the body was cut into small pieces. These circumstances rule out the possibility of falling from the train.

10. A perusal of evidence shows that Jagdeep Singh, Gateman of Gate No. 145-B has stated before the Tribunal