Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 942

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Alok Upasani, Judicial Member, Mohit Sinha, Technical Member
Tarapada Gorai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II u)/MCC/375/2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jainam Gadiya
For the Respondents: Ankita Rele

The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the death occurred due to an accidental fall from a train. Trespassing on railway tracks does not constitute an untoward incident qualifying for statutory compensation.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123 (c)(2) and 124-A - Compensation for untoward incident - Accidental falling of passenger - Burden of proof - Initial burden lies on applicant to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and death occurred as a result of untoward incident - Unsubstantiated claims of travel and hearsay evidence cannot shift burden to railway administration. (Paras 13, 19, 28)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Adverse inference - Where party in possession of best evidence withholds it, court can draw adverse inference - Lack of documentation regarding valid ticket or eyewitness testimony for fall from train weakens the claim. (Para 19)

(C) Untoward Incident - Definition under Section 123(c) - Restrictive interpretation - Trespassing on tracks does not fall within the ambit of 'untoward incident' as defined, which limits coverage to accidental falling from a train. (Paras 25, 27)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought compensation for the death of their son, alleging he died after accidentally falling from a train. The respondent contended that the deceased was not a passenger but was instead killed while trespassing on the railway tracks, as evidenced by the motorman who reported seeing a person trying to cross the tracks at the time of the incident.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found that the applicants failed to produce any cogent evidence of the deceased being a bonafide passenger or witnessing the alleged fall from the train. Testimony from the official on duty, corroborated by the nature of the injuries sustained, supported the defense that the deceased was struck while trespassing, not while traveling as a passenger.

Issues: Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, and whether the death occurred due to an 'untoward incident' (accidental fall) as defined under the relevant law.

Ratio Decidendi: An 'untoward incident' under the statutes is defined restrictively; since the deceased was found to be trespassing rather than falling from a train, the death did not qualify for compensation. Furthermore, the reliance on hearsay and the failure to present best evidence regarding the travel ticket meant the applicants did not discharge their initial burden of proof.

Result: Claim application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing dependent status and the factual incident context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 15)
2. the evidentiary burden regarding bonafide passenger status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. requirement of proving an accidental fall from a train. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. trespassing on tracks constitutes neither a passenger journey nor an untoward incident. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. failure to prove bonafide travel results in denial of compensation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

J U D G M E N T

1. This Claim Application is filed by the Applicants, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sec. 123 (c) (2) & Sec. 124 - A of the Railways Act, 1989, for compensation on account of death of their unmarried son, Paresh Tarapada Gorai (hereinafter referred as deceased), in an alleged untoward incident occurred on 10.06.2017. The Applicants have claimed that they being the parents are the dependents of the deceased, Paresh Tarapada Gorai.

2. There was a delay of 1 moth and 18 days in filing the Claim Application, which was condoned vide Tribunal’s order dated 08.01.2019.

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

3. It is alleged that the deceased, Paresh Tarapada Gorai, a resident of West Bengal, was in service. It is further alleged that on 10.06.2017, he reached at Bandra railways station with a view to go to Mumbai Central railway station and boarded in local train proceeding towards Churchgate railway station. The said train was overcrowded therefore Paresh Tarapada Gorai, the deceased was standing near the door inside the compartment of the train. When the said train reached between Lower Parel and Mahalaxmi railway station, between KM. No. 7/2 & 7/3, due to jerk and jolt of the train and push from other passengers in the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from the moving local train and sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Nair Hospital for medical treatment, wherein he was declared dead before admission in the hospital. It is therefore contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and had died in an untoward incident.

4. In response to notice, Respondent Railway appeared and opposed the Claim application. The Respondent has filed Written Statement and also produced on record the DRM report pertaining to investigation conducted by Inspector/RPF/Mumbai Central, accompanied with other relevant documents. The DRM Report reflects that on 10.06.2017 at about 23.40 hours, pursuant to information received from Guard of Train No. VR 91118, SS/Lower Parel along with GRP/BCT and Hamals reached the incident site and found one unknown person, aged about 30 years, lying in dead condition between Up/Through/Line and DN/Through/Line, between KM. No. 7/2-3, between Lower and Mahalaxmi railway station, with skull burst open. The SS/Lower Parel issued a memo to GRP/BCT and sent the deceased to Nair Hospital. The GRP prepared the Police Report and conducted the Inquest Panchnama and registered a case vide ADR No. 56/2017, under Sec. 174 of Cr. PC dated 11.06.2017. The GRP has mentioned about the recovery of railway pass and identity card from the possession of the deceased in their related documents. However, in absence of complete details and copy of said railway pass, the deceased cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. Further, the SS/Lower Parel has mentioned the reason for the incident in his memo as “knocked down”. The Motorman of Train No. 91118, Shri P. V. N. Ravne has mentioned in his untoward incident report that on 10.06.2017, while performing his duty as Motorman of Train No. VR-91118, when his train reached between Mahalaxmi and Lower Parel railway station, on Up through track, he saw one person walking on the Up through track. He immediately blew the hooter and simultaneously applied emergency brake, but the said person did not hear and at the last moment while trying to move away from the track, he was hit by the Tra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 942

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAIAlok Upasani, Judicial Member, Mohit Sinha, Technical MemberTarapada Gorai – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA (II u)/MCC/375/2020

The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the death occurred due to an accidental fall from a train. Trespassing on railway tracks does not constitute an untoward incident qualifying for statutory compensation.

Cases Referred (3)

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Alok Upasani, Judicial Member, Mohit Sinha, Technical Member
Tarapada Gorai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II u)/MCC/375/2020