An accidental fall from a running train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act. Recovery of a valid journey ticket establishes bona fide travel, shifting the burden to the Railways. Claims are adjudicated on preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/GZB/228/2018, titled as “Badshah & Anr. vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the incident in question was not an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and consequently, did not return any finding on the issue of bona fide travel.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 07.02.2018, one Shahid (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) purchased a valid journey ticket for travelling from Garhi Harsaru to Hathras Junction, and on 08.02.2018, he de-boarded at Aligarh for change of train, and thereafter boarded Train No. 54462 (Bareilly-Bandikui Passenger) Train, and while approaching Pora, he accidentally fell from the running train and sustained injuries, due to which he died on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has disregarded the contemporaneous record, including the inquest proceedings, the railway investigation, and the post- mortem report. It is submitted that the railways’ own investigation records recovery of the journey ticket from the person of the deceased, which conclusively establishes bona fide travel. It is further contended that the finding of “run-over” is based on conjecture, there being no eyewitness, no loco pilot evidence to negate a fall, and no medical opinion ruling out a fall from a train. Reliance is placed on the principle that accidental fall from a running train squarely falls within Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Act and that once foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the same.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the location of the body on the track and the nature of injuries suggest a “run-over” case, and that there is no direct eyewitness to a fall. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly inferred that the deceased was not travelling in the train at the relevant time.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The first aspect that arises for consideration is the manner of occurrence and whether the death falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Act.

8. A perusal of the record indicates that first information regarding an unknown dead body was received and the body of the deceased was found lying in between of the railway track at Km No. 1285/20-18 in the vicinity of Pora Railway Station, and the inquest papers/panchnama record the same location. The railway investigation also proceeds on the basis of recovery of the body from the track in the said section. Notably, there is no material placed on record to show that the deceased was “crossing the track” or “was present on the track” for any reason unconnected with train travel.

9. The Tribunal has treated the case as one of “run over” primarily on the basis of the location of the body and the nature of injuries. However, the record does not disclose any direct evidence supporting such conclusion. There is no eyewitness account or any statement of guard, driver or any railway official indicating that the deceased was seen “on the track” prior to the incident, and no contemporaneous railway record ruling out a fall from a train, and the finding to the aforesaid is thus only inferential in nature. The post-mortem report opines the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage consequent to the said injuries, and does not opine that the injuries are exclusively consistent with a “run-over” nor does it rule out a fall f