Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 843

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Rajeev Jain, Judicial Member
Mukund Laxman Bhalerao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II U) /MCC/0886/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. R. Shukla
For the Respondents: Ankita Rele

Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation for untoward incidents, including accidental falls from trains, unless the injury is proven to be caused by suicide, self-infliction, or criminal acts, regardless of the absence of a passenger ticket.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Untoward incident - Passenger falling from train - Compensation - Claimant sustained non-scheduled injuries while falling from a train - Absence of ticket does not disqualify claimant as bonafide passenger when the burden of proof is shifted to Railways - Strict liability principle applied under Section 124-A - Injury occurred due to accidental fall while boarding; respondent failed to prove exception clauses under proviso to Section 124-A. (Paras 11, 12, 16, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The claimant was returning from work and attempted to board a local train. During the process, he was pushed by the crowd, lost his balance, and fell between the train and the platform, sustaining severe injuries to his right leg. The claimant filed an application for compensation, maintaining that he was a bonafide passenger who lost his ticket in the incident. The respondent contested the claim, arguing negligence and lack of evidence for a valid ticket.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the incident qualified as an untoward incident. The shifting of the burden of proof regarding ticket possession, as per precedent, was satisfied by the claimant’s affidavit in the absence of rebuttal by the railway authorities. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a.

Issues: 1. Whether the injured was a bonafide passenger? 2. Whether the fall constituted an untoward incident under the Act? 3. Determination of the quantum of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act mandates that compensation is payable for untoward incidents unless the injury falls under specific exception clauses (suicide, self-inflicted, criminal act, etc.). The absence of a ticket does not inherently disprove bonafide passenger status if circumstances support the claim.

Result: Claim application allowed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and contentions regarding untoward incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. interpretation of 'untoward incident' and 'strict liability' provisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. burden of proof concerning bonafide passenger status in ticketless cases. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
4. assessment of compensation for non-scheduled injuries and final order. (Para 19)

JUDGEMENT

By Shri. Rajeev Jain, Member (J) RCT/Jaipur Circuit Bench at RCT/Mumbai

1. The Claim Application has been filed by the Applicant, Mukund Laxman Bhalerao, for compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 123 (c) (2) & Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, for injuries sustained by him in an alleged untoward incident, occurred on 02.08.2018.

The factual matrix of the matter in nut-shell is as below:

2. It is stated that Mukund Laxman Bhalerao (hereafter referred as injured), resident of Mumbai. It is alleged that on 02.08.2018, he was travelling from Thane to Karjat Railway Station by unknown train. When the train started from Thane Railway station, PF no.5 due to sudden push from the other passengers, he accidentally fell down from the train. It is further stated that the injured was travelling as a bonafide passenger, on the strength of a valid Second Class ticket Ex. Thane to Karjat and the same was lost in the untoward incident.

3. In response to notice– Railway Authority appeared and opposed the claim application. The Respondent filed written statement and also produced on record the DRM reports, accompanied with other relevant police papers marked as “R-1”. It has been alleged that Injured person while boarding a local train at station PF No. 5 he slipped and got injured. DYSS/TNA issued memo to GRP Thane. On receiving the memo, GRP Thane took the said injured person to Thane Civil Hospital. Where on duty doctor treated him and issued him MLC no. 14234. For further treatment, the relatives of the injured took him to a private hospital on their own responsibility. The above person has been injured by falling due to his own negligence while travelling by standing at the entry/exit door made for the purpose of passengers convenience in a moving train. Travelling by hanging on the door of the train/roof of a motor vehicle coach or boarding or alighting from a moving train or doing stunts is a punishable offence under Section 156 of the Railway Act. The said accident has occurred due to the fault of the injured person in which the railway administration is not at fault. On the basis of the investigation, the injured person is not entitled to any claim.

4. In view of pleading of both parties, and relevant documents produced on record, this Tribunal framed the following issues on 03.03.2020, for just and proper adjudication of Claim Application on merit within ambit of law.

1. Whether the injured was travelling in the train in question as a bonafide passenger?

2. Whether the injured fell down from the train, as alleged and whether the incident can be described as an untoward incident as defined U/s. 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act?

3. What is the nature of injuries sustained by the injured?

4. To what relief?

5. That, in order to establish the claim, the injured Mukund Laxman Bhalerao stepped into the witness-box and filed his Affidavit on 25.09.2024, in lieu of his examination-in-chief on record. He produced the relevant documents comprising:

SN	Documents	Exhibit
1.	Police Report	A-1
2.	Statement of Mukund	A-2
3.	SM Memo	A-3
4.	Copy of Medical papers	A-4

6. Applicant Mukund Laxman Bhalerao (AW-1), in his affidavit dated 25.09.2024 deposed that, on 02.08.2018, he was travelling from Thane to Karjat Railway Station by unknown train. When the train started from Thane Railway station, PF no.5 due to sudden push from the other passengers, he accidentally fell down from the train. It is further stated that the injured was trav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 843

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAIRajeev Jain, Judicial MemberMukund Laxman Bhalerao – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA (II U) /MCC/0886/2018

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Rajeev Jain, Judicial Member
Mukund Laxman Bhalerao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II U) /MCC/0886/2018