Mere Possession Of Ticket Not Proof Of ‘Untoward Incident’; Suicide Excludes Liability Under S.124-A Railways Act: Railway Claim Tribunal Lucknow - 2025-09-06

Tribunal Rejects Rs 21 Lakh Claim, Cites Evidence of Suicide Over Accidental Fall from Train

LUCKNOW — The Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a ₹21 lakh compensation claim filed by the family of a deceased man, ruling that his death was a case of suicide and not an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989. The bench, comprising Justice Bachchoo Lal (Member, Judicial) and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha (Member, Technical), held that the mere possession of a valid journey ticket does not automatically prove that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a train, especially when confronted with substantial evidence to the contrary.

Background of the Case

The applicants, Smt. Saroj Sahu and her two minor children, sought compensation for the death of her husband, Raj Kumar Sahu. They contended that on May 27, 2021, the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling from Jhansi to Bhopal on the NZM JBP SF Special train. They claimed he accidentally fell from the moving train near Basai railway station, sustaining fatal injuries. To support their claim, they presented a valid reserved journey ticket.

Railway's Counter-Arguments and Investigation

The Union of India, representing the North Central Railway, vehemently opposed the claim. They argued that Mr. Sahu was never a passenger on the train and that his death was a clear case of suicide. The railway administration presented a detailed Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report, which concluded that the deceased was run over by a train while he was on the tracks.

Key points from the railway's investigation included:

* A motorcycle belonging to the deceased was found parked near the incident site.

* Witness statements from railway gangmen, Kamla (RW-1) and Salim Khan (RW-2), revealed that the deceased's family members were searching for him on the tracks that night. They had been alerted by the deceased himself, who allegedly called them to say he was "lying on the railway track."

* The post-mortem report detailed gruesome injuries, including decapitation, which the Tribunal noted were more consistent with being run over than with an accidental fall.

Tribunal's Findings and Legal Reasoning

After evaluating the evidence from both sides, the Tribunal found significant contradictions in the applicants' case and credited the railway's investigation.

Analysis of Evidence: The Tribunal found the testimony of the applicants' key witness, Raju Sahu (the deceased's brother-in-law), to be "contradictory and unreliable." He claimed to have seen the deceased board the train at Jhansi, yet evidence placed him near the incident site searching for the deceased that same night. The Tribunal noted, "...his evidence appears to be led with ulterior motives for getting the compensation from the Respondent Railway, hence, it cannot be considered to be trustworthy."

Crucially, the deceased's wife, Smt. Saroj Sahu, reportedly admitted to the railway's investigating officer that the claim of an accidental fall was made on the advice of a lawyer to secure compensation.

Nature of Injuries as a Deciding Factor: Citing a precedent from the Allahabad High Court in Tara Chand Mathur vs. Union of India , the Tribunal emphasized the nature of the injuries. The judgment stated, "In case a person fell down from the train ordinarily, the body does not cut into two pieces." The post-mortem report, which noted the deceased's head was separated from his body, strongly suggested he was on the tracks when hit by a train.

The Tribunal's judgment observed:

"Thus, it is established from the evidence on record that the deceased died due to being knocked down/run over by the train and his body was in two parts... which cannot be construed that he died due to an untoward incident by falling down from the train."

Final Verdict

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to discharge their initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died in an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Acts of suicide are explicitly excluded from the definition of an "untoward incident," making the railway administration not liable for compensation in such cases.

Finding the railway's evidence of suicide compelling and the applicants' narrative inconsistent, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application in its entirety.