Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 904

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Rajeev Jain, Member (J), Niva Singh, Member (T)
Pratiksha Jeevan Kadam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II U) /MCC/222/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. T. Ajagekar
For the Respondents: D. Fernandes

A claimant seeking compensation under the Railways Act for an untoward incident must prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket and that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a train, not from trespassing or other causes.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 2(29), 123(b), 123(c)(2), and 124-A - Untoward incident - Death of passenger - Compensation - Necessity to establish status as a bona fide passenger and occurrence of accidental fall - Absence of valid ticket and inconsistencies in evidence - Claim dismissed.

(B) Evidence - Initial burden of proof - Claimant must establish valid travel - Failure to prove incident resulted from falling from a train - Injuries inconsistent with accidental fall - Reliance on nature of injuries indicating trespassing.

Facts of the case:
Dependents of the deceased claimed compensation alleging the deceased died during an untoward incident (accidental fall from a train) on 15.08.2022. No ticket was found on the deceased; only a non-valid railway pass was recovered. The railway evidence suggested the deceased may have been trespassing as injuries were inconsistent with a fall from a train.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no valid ticket was produced or recovered. Furthermore, the nature of injuries sustained indicated the deceased was likely knocked down while trespassing, rather than falling from a train, thus failing satisfy the definition of an untoward incident.

Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, whether the incident was an untoward incident as defined under the Act, and whether the applicants are eligible for compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish both the status of a bona fide passenger and that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a train. Given the lack of a ticket and the nature of injuries consistent with being hit by a train rather than falling, the requisites for compensation under the Railways Act were not met.

Result: Claim Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the alleged untoward incident and discovery of the deceased. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. analysis of witness testimony and evidence produced by the dependents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

JUDGEMENT

1. This Claim Application is filed by the applicants u/s. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w. sec. 123 (c) (2) &sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for compensation arising out of an alleged untoward incident occurred on 15.08.2022 involving death of Jeevan Aryashil Kadam (herein after referred as the deceased). The Applicants claim that being wife, mother and children of the deceased, they are the dependents of Jeevan Aryashil Kadam.

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

2. It is stated that, Jeevan Aryashil Kadam, (hereafter referred as deceased), aged 35 years, was resident of Vikhroli. The Applicant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, Applicant No. 2 is his mother and Applicant no. 3 & 4 are his children. It has been alleged that on 15.08.2022 the deceased was travelling from Thane to Vikhroli by the local train. When the said local train reached near Km. No. 22/448-449 in between Vikhroli and Kanjurmarg railway station the body of the deceased was found and thereafter at about 22.25 hrs SM issued a memo to GRP and the GRP took the injured to Rajawadi Hospital, Ghatkopar wherein the concerned doctor examined the injured and declared him dead before admission. The deceased accidentally fell down from the train and died before admission in the hospital. It has been contented that the journey ticket was lost in the incident therefore, deceased was a bona-fide passenger and died in untoward incident occurred on 15.08.2022.

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 on August 15, 2022, at 22:15 hrs, upon being summoned by the Station Master, Vikhroli, RPF staff and GRP arrived at the Station Master's office. The Station Master informed them that an unidentified man was lying injured at Km No. 22/448-449 between Vikhroli-Kanjurmarg Railway Station. The Station Master, along with the RPF and GRP, subsequently attended the spot of incident, where an unidentified man was found seriously injured, with his legs and head severed. Based on memo number 025350 issued by the Station Master, Vikhroli, he was taken to Rajawadi Hospital for further treatment by GRP staff PC-092 Jhite. Dr. Ramesh Bhagat, on duty, examined the deceased and declared him dead at 23:15 hrs. In the inquest panchnama, one railway pass no. UFN 23185018 from Vikhroli to Bandra dated 05.08.2022 to 04.09.2022 was found with the deceased, apart from this no valuable document, item or money was found. On submission of the documents related to the case by the GRP at the police station, GRP Police Station Kurla registered ADR No. 138/2022 under Cr. PC 174 on 16.08.2022 at 07:36 hrs. The relevant documents were obtained and examined, but during the investigation of the incident, no evidence of any eyewitness was found, due to which the cause of death could not be ascertained.

4. In view of pleading of both the parties, and relevant documents produced on record, this Tribunal framed the following issues on 11.01.2024 for just and proper adjudication of the Claim Application on merit within ambit of law.

Issues

1.	Whether the deceased was travelling on valid railway ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train, in question, at the relevant time?
2.	Whether the applicants prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward accident incident as alleged in the Claims Application and the present case is covered under section 123(c)(2) of Railway Act, 1989?
3.	Whether the Respondent prove that Respondent is protected under the exceptional clause (a) to (e) of Sec. 124(A) o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 904

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAIRajeev Jain, Member (J), Niva Singh, Member (T)Pratiksha Jeevan Kadam – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA (II U) /MCC/222/2023

A claimant seeking compensation under the Railways Act for an untoward incident must prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket and that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a train, not from trespassing or other causes.

Cases Referred (1)

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Rajeev Jain, Member (J), Niva Singh, Member (T)
Pratiksha Jeevan Kadam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II U) /MCC/222/2023