FAO NO.2876 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURBACHAN KAUR AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA 1 The date when the 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Ms. Bhawna Thakur, Advocate for the HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation on account of death of Gian Singh in an untoward incident came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the case of the appel went to Amritsar on 19.07.2013 to pay obeisance at Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple). After paying homage, he purchased a valid journey ticket from Amritsar to Manawala and boarded the passenger train for his return jour heavy rush inside the compartment, he remained standing near the door. As soon as 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2876 GURBACHAN KAUR AND ANR. UNION OF INDIA The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Ujval Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Bhawna Thakur, Advocate for the respondent-UOI. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation on account of death of Gian Singh in an untoward incident came to be dismissed. Briefly stating, the case of the appel went to Amritsar on 19.07.2013 to pay obeisance at Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple). After paying homage, he purchased a valid journey ticket from Amritsar to Manawala and boarded the passenger train for his return jour heavy rush inside the compartment, he remained standing near the door. As soon as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2876 of 2018 (O&M) …Appellants …Respondent judgment was reserved 10.07.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.08.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 01.08.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation on account of death of Gian Singh in an untoward incident Briefly stating, the case of the appellants is that deceased Gian Singh went to Amritsar on 19.07.2013 to pay obeisance at Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple). After paying homage, he purchased a valid journey ticket from Amritsar to Manawala and boarded the passenger train for his return journey. Owing to heavy rush inside the compartment, he remained standing near the door. As soon as 1 By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, claim application filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation on account of death of Gian Singh in an untoward incident lants is that deceased Gian Singh went to Amritsar on 19.07.2013 to pay obeisance at Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple). After paying homage, he purchased a valid journey ticket from Amritsar ney. Owing to heavy rush inside the compartment, he remained standing near the door. As soon as MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 the train started moving, it gave a sudden jerk, resulting in the deceased accidentally falling from the moving train into the adjoining drainage channel, where he unfortunately drowned. 3. It was pleaded that information regarding the incident was conveyed by the Station Master to the Government Railway Police. During personal search of the deceased, two railway journey tickets, namely, Manawala Amritsar-Manawala, were recovered. The appellants further relied upon the inquest proceedings, personal search memo, post during investigation and the statement of co establish that the passenger. 4. The respondent deceased attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform, failed to hold the handle o Railways, the deceased died due to drowning and not due to injuries sustained in an accidental fall from the train. It was thus contended that the case was covered by the exceptions contained being a case of self 5. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) (ii) Sections 123(c) and 124 (iii) (iv) 2018 (O&M) the train started moving, it gave a sudden jerk, resulting in the deceased accidentally falling from the moving train into the adjoining drainage channel, he unfortunately drowned. It was pleaded that information regarding the incident was conveyed by the Station Master to the Government Railway Police. During personal search of the deceased, two railway journey tickets, namely, Manawala Manawala, were recovered. The appellants further relied upon the inquest proceedings, personal search memo, post-mortem report, statements recorded during investigation and the statement of co establish that the deceased accidentally fell from the train and was a bona fide The respondent-Railways contested the claim by asserting that the deceased attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform, failed to hold the handle of the coach and fell into the drainage channel. According to the Railways, the deceased died due to drowning and not due to injuries sustained in an accidental fall from the train. It was thus contended that the case was covered by the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124 being a case of self-inflicted injury or criminal negligence. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (ii) Whether the incident amounted to an untoward incident under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act? (iii) Whether the applicants were dependants? (iv) Relief.” the train started moving, it gave a sudden jerk, resulting in the deceased accidentally falling from the moving train into the adjoining drainage channel, It was pleaded that information regarding the incident was conveyed by the Station Master to the Government Railway Police. During personal search of the deceased, two railway journey tickets, namely, Manawala-Amritsar and Manawala, were recovered. The appellants further relied upon the inquest mortem report, statements recorded during investigation and the statement of co-passenger Gulwinder Singh to deceased accidentally fell from the train and was a bona fide Railways contested the claim by asserting that the deceased attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform, failed f the coach and fell into the drainage channel. According to the Railways, the deceased died due to drowning and not due to injuries sustained in an accidental fall from the train. It was thus contended that the case was covered in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, inflicted injury or criminal negligence. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? Whether the incident amounted to an untoward incident under A of the Railways Act? Whether the applicants were dependants? 2 the train started moving, it gave a sudden jerk, resulting in the deceased accidentally falling from the moving train into the adjoining drainage channel, It was pleaded that information regarding the incident was conveyed by the Station Master to the Government Railway Police. During personal search r and Manawala, were recovered. The appellants further relied upon the inquest mortem report, statements recorded passenger Gulwinder Singh to deceased accidentally fell from the train and was a bona fide Railways contested the claim by asserting that the deceased attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform, failed f the coach and fell into the drainage channel. According to the Railways, the deceased died due to drowning and not due to injuries sustained in an accidental fall from the train. It was thus contended that the case was covered A of the Railways Act, On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- Whether the incident amounted to an untoward incident under MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal returned findings against the claimants on all the issues. It held t from the off-side and consequently fell into the river, resulting in his death by drowning. The Tribunal further concluded that the occurrence was the result of the deceased's own criminally negligent "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act. It was also held that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and that the recovery of two railway tickets from th version set up by the claimants. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that t completely misread the evidence on record. It was argued that the recovery of valid railway tickets from the person of the deceased stood duly proved through the personal search memo and was never disputed. He further submitted that the inquest report, Station Master's memo, post statement of co deceased accidentally fell from the train. Learned counsel further argued that even accepting the Railways' own moving train, such accidental fall squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and did not constitute a "criminal act" so as to attract the exception 2018 (O&M) Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal returned findings against the claimants on all the issues. It held that the deceased was attempting to board a moving train side and consequently fell into the river, resulting in his death by drowning. The Tribunal further concluded that the occurrence was the result of the deceased's own criminally negligent act and, therefore, did not constitute an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act. It was also held that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and that the recovery of two railway tickets from the deceased cast serious doubt on the version set up by the claimants. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that t completely misread the evidence on record. It was argued that the recovery of valid railway tickets from the person of the deceased stood duly proved through the personal search memo and was never disputed. He further submitted that the report, Station Master's memo, post-mortem request, police papers and statement of co-passenger Gulwinder Singh uniformly established that the deceased accidentally fell from the train. Learned counsel further argued that even accepting the Railways' own version that the deceased fell while boarding the moving train, such accidental fall squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and did not constitute a "criminal act" so as to attract the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124 Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal returned findings against the claimants hat the deceased was attempting to board a moving train side and consequently fell into the river, resulting in his death by drowning. The Tribunal further concluded that the occurrence was the result of the act and, therefore, did not constitute an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act. It was also held that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and e deceased cast serious doubt on the version set up by the claimants. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal completely misread the evidence on record. It was argued that the recovery of valid railway tickets from the person of the deceased stood duly proved through the personal search memo and was never disputed. He further submitted that the mortem request, police papers and passenger Gulwinder Singh uniformly established that the deceased accidentally fell from the train. Learned counsel further argued that even version that the deceased fell while boarding the moving train, such accidental fall squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and did not constitute a s under the proviso to Section 124-A. 3 Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal returned findings against the claimants hat the deceased was attempting to board a moving train side and consequently fell into the river, resulting in his death by drowning. The Tribunal further concluded that the occurrence was the result of the act and, therefore, did not constitute an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act. It was also held that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and e deceased cast serious doubt on the version set up by the claimants. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. he Tribunal completely misread the evidence on record. It was argued that the recovery of valid railway tickets from the person of the deceased stood duly proved through the personal search memo and was never disputed. He further submitted that the mortem request, police papers and passenger Gulwinder Singh uniformly established that the deceased accidentally fell from the train. Learned counsel further argued that even version that the deceased fell while boarding the moving train, such accidental fall squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and did not constitute a A. MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supportted the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the deceased knowingly attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform and benefit of a beneficial legislation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 10. The Tribunal discarded the case of the appellants mainly on the reasoning that two railway ticke regarding his journey. This Court finds itself unable to agree with the aforesaid conclusion. The personal search memo prepared immediately after the occurrence records recovery of both railway tickets from the Significantly, neither the genuineness of the tickets nor their recovery was ever disputed by the respondent. The Tribunal merely speculated that the deceased could not have visited Golden Temple and returned within the available time finding is founded entirely upon conjectures without any supporting evidence. A Court cannot substitute assumptions for evidence. The Tribunal presumed the minimum time required for darshan and thereafter rejected the documentary evidence merely on 10.1 This Hon’ble Court in FAO No. 2396 Singh v. Union of India,” journey tickets, held that once a valid railwa and no convincing evidence is produced by the Railways to rebut the statutory presumption, the passenger must ordinarily be treated as a bona fide passenger. 2018 (O&M) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supportted the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the deceased knowingly attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform and benefit of a beneficial legislation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The Tribunal discarded the case of the appellants mainly on the reasoning that two railway tickets recovered from the deceased created doubt regarding his journey. This Court finds itself unable to agree with the aforesaid conclusion. The personal search memo prepared immediately after the occurrence records recovery of both railway tickets from the Significantly, neither the genuineness of the tickets nor their recovery was ever disputed by the respondent. The Tribunal merely speculated that the deceased could not have visited Golden Temple and returned within the available time finding is founded entirely upon conjectures without any supporting evidence. A Court cannot substitute assumptions for evidence. The Tribunal presumed the minimum time required for darshan and thereafter rejected the documentary evidence merely on surmises. Such reasoning is legally unsustainable. This Hon’ble Court in FAO No. 2396 Singh v. Union of India,” decided on 27.04.2017, while dealing with recovery of journey tickets, held that once a valid railway ticket is recovered from the deceased and no convincing evidence is produced by the Railways to rebut the statutory presumption, the passenger must ordinarily be treated as a bona fide passenger. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supportted the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the deceased knowingly attempted to board a moving train from the off side of the platform and therefore cannot claim I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The Tribunal discarded the case of the appellants mainly on the ts recovered from the deceased created doubt regarding his journey. This Court finds itself unable to agree with the aforesaid conclusion. The personal search memo prepared immediately after the occurrence records recovery of both railway tickets from the body of the deceased. Significantly, neither the genuineness of the tickets nor their recovery was ever disputed by the respondent. The Tribunal merely speculated that the deceased could not have visited Golden Temple and returned within the available time. Such finding is founded entirely upon conjectures without any supporting evidence. A Court cannot substitute assumptions for evidence. The Tribunal presumed the minimum time required for darshan and thereafter rejected the documentary surmises. Such reasoning is legally unsustainable. This Hon’ble Court in FAO No. 2396 of 2016 titled as “Harpreet decided on 27.04.2017, while dealing with recovery of y ticket is recovered from the deceased and no convincing evidence is produced by the Railways to rebut the statutory presumption, the passenger must ordinarily be treated as a bona fide passenger. 4 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supportted the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the deceased knowingly attempted to therefore cannot claim I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- The Tribunal discarded the case of the appellants mainly on the ts recovered from the deceased created doubt regarding his journey. This Court finds itself unable to agree with the aforesaid conclusion. The personal search memo prepared immediately after the occurrence body of the deceased. Significantly, neither the genuineness of the tickets nor their recovery was ever disputed by the respondent. The Tribunal merely speculated that the deceased . Such finding is founded entirely upon conjectures without any supporting evidence. A Court cannot substitute assumptions for evidence. The Tribunal presumed the minimum time required for darshan and thereafter rejected the documentary “Harpreet decided on 27.04.2017, while dealing with recovery of y ticket is recovered from the deceased and no convincing evidence is produced by the Railways to rebut the statutory presumption, the passenger must ordinarily be treated as a bona fide passenger. MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 Mere conjectures regarding surrounding circumstances canno documentary evidence. 10.2 In the present case also, the recovery memo, police documents and inquest proceedings consistently record the recovery of valid journey tickets. The Tribunal therefore erred in discarding unimpeachable documen merely on hypothetical assumptions, particularly when no evidence to the contrary were produced by the respondents. 11. Equally unsustainable is the finding that the occurrence did not constitute an untoward incident. The Tribunal itself accepted the Railways' version that the deceased attempted to board the moving train, failed to grip the handle and fell into the adjoinin conclusion is that the deceased accidentally fell from a train carrying passengers. Clause (2) of Section 123(c) expressly includes passenger from a train carryi passenger was boarding, de squarely falls within the statutory definition. 11.1 The Tribunal committed a serious legal error by introducing an additional requirement not contemplated under the statute, namely, that the passenger should have sustained bodily injuries leading directly to death. The cause of death recorded in the post itself was the immediate deceased not fallen from the moving train, the drowning would never have occurred. The chain of causation thus remains intact. 2018 (O&M) Mere conjectures regarding surrounding circumstances canno documentary evidence. In the present case also, the recovery memo, police documents and inquest proceedings consistently record the recovery of valid journey tickets. The Tribunal therefore erred in discarding unimpeachable documen ely on hypothetical assumptions, particularly when no evidence to the contrary were produced by the respondents. Equally unsustainable is the finding that the occurrence did not constitute an untoward incident. The Tribunal itself accepted the Railways' version that the deceased attempted to board the moving train, failed to grip the handle and fell into the adjoining drain. Once this factual position is accepted, the inevitable conclusion is that the deceased accidentally fell from a train carrying passengers. Clause (2) of Section 123(c) expressly includes passenger from a train carrying passengers." passenger was boarding, de-boarding or travelling, accidental fall from the train squarely falls within the statutory definition. The Tribunal committed a serious legal error by introducing an dditional requirement not contemplated under the statute, namely, that the passenger should have sustained bodily injuries leading directly to death. The cause of death recorded in the post-mortem is drowning. However, the drowning itself was the immediate consequence of the accidental fall from the train. Had the deceased not fallen from the moving train, the drowning would never have occurred. The chain of causation thus remains intact. Mere conjectures regarding surrounding circumstances cannot dislodge In the present case also, the recovery memo, police documents and inquest proceedings consistently record the recovery of valid journey tickets. The Tribunal therefore erred in discarding unimpeachable documentary evidence ely on hypothetical assumptions, particularly when no evidence to the contrary Equally unsustainable is the finding that the occurrence did not constitute an untoward incident. The Tribunal itself accepted the Railways' version that the deceased attempted to board the moving train, failed to grip the handle and g drain. Once this factual position is accepted, the inevitable conclusion is that the deceased accidentally fell from a train carrying passengers. Clause (2) of Section 123(c) expressly includes "the accidental falling of any ng passengers." Thus, irrespective of whether the boarding or travelling, accidental fall from the train The Tribunal committed a serious legal error by introducing an dditional requirement not contemplated under the statute, namely, that the passenger should have sustained bodily injuries leading directly to death. The mortem is drowning. However, the drowning consequence of the accidental fall from the train. Had the deceased not fallen from the moving train, the drowning would never have occurred. The chain of causation thus remains intact. 5 t dislodge In the present case also, the recovery memo, police documents and inquest proceedings consistently record the recovery of valid journey tickets. The tary evidence ely on hypothetical assumptions, particularly when no evidence to the contrary Equally unsustainable is the finding that the occurrence did not constitute an untoward incident. The Tribunal itself accepted the Railways' version that the deceased attempted to board the moving train, failed to grip the handle and g drain. Once this factual position is accepted, the inevitable conclusion is that the deceased accidentally fell from a train carrying passengers. "the accidental falling of any Thus, irrespective of whether the boarding or travelling, accidental fall from the train The Tribunal committed a serious legal error by introducing an dditional requirement not contemplated under the statute, namely, that the passenger should have sustained bodily injuries leading directly to death. The mortem is drowning. However, the drowning consequence of the accidental fall from the train. Had the deceased not fallen from the moving train, the drowning would never have MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 12. The Tribunal further held that the deceased committed a c negligent act by boarding a moving train from the off side. Such reasoning also cannot be sustained. Section 124 principle of strict liability. Compensation can be denied only if the case squarely falls within one of the five statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso. The Jharkhand High Court, in (mother of deceased Md. Rijwan) v. Union of India through the General Manager, held that where, owing to the train from the off occurrence would nonetheless fall within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways A reproduced hereunder: “11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased, Md. Rijwan has purchased railway ticket bearing no. 89122716 and he was Because of the rush, the passenger took option of boarding the train from the off track too. The deceased sustained injury, but certainly knowledge nor intention to commit suicide and as such, because of untoward incident passenger suffered injury, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased is covered as untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railway 12.1 In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence suggesting suicide, attempted suicide, self Even assuming that 2018 (O&M) The Tribunal further held that the deceased committed a c negligent act by boarding a moving train from the off side. Such reasoning also cannot be sustained. Section 124-A is a beneficial legislation introducing the principle of strict liability. Compensation can be denied only if the case squarely ls within one of the five statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso. The Jharkhand High Court, in M.A. No. 422 of 2015 (mother of deceased Md. Rijwan) v. Union of India through the General , held that where, owing to heavy rush, a passenger attempted to board the train from the off-side and sustained injuries resulting in his death, such an occurrence would nonetheless fall within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways A reproduced hereunder:- “11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased, Md. Rijwan has purchased railway ticket bearing no. 89122716 and he was a bonafide passenger as held by the Claim Tribunal itself. Because of the rush, the passenger took option of boarding the train from the off-side as the doors are also opened on the other side of the track too. The deceased sustained injury, but certainly knowledge nor intention to commit suicide and as such, because of untoward incident passenger suffered injury, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased is covered as untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railway In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence suggesting suicide, attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury or commission of any criminal offence. assuming that the deceased attempted to board the train while it started The Tribunal further held that the deceased committed a criminally negligent act by boarding a moving train from the off side. Such reasoning also A is a beneficial legislation introducing the principle of strict liability. Compensation can be denied only if the case squarely ls within one of the five statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso. The M.A. No. 422 of 2015, titled Smt. Saibun Khatoon (mother of deceased Md. Rijwan) v. Union of India through the General heavy rush, a passenger attempted to board side and sustained injuries resulting in his death, such an occurrence would nonetheless fall within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Relevant para thereof is “11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased, Md. Rijwan has purchased railway ticket bearing no. 89122716 and he a bonafide passenger as held by the Claim Tribunal itself. Because of the rush, the passenger took option of boarding the train side as the doors are also opened on the other side of the track too. The deceased sustained injury, but certainly he has no knowledge nor intention to commit suicide and as such, because of untoward incident passenger suffered injury, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased is covered as untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railway Act.” In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence suggesting suicide, inflicted injury or commission of any criminal offence. attempted to board the train while it started 6 riminally negligent act by boarding a moving train from the off side. Such reasoning also A is a beneficial legislation introducing the principle of strict liability. Compensation can be denied only if the case squarely ls within one of the five statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso. The Smt. Saibun Khatoon (mother of deceased Md. Rijwan) v. Union of India through the General heavy rush, a passenger attempted to board side and sustained injuries resulting in his death, such an occurrence would nonetheless fall within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as ct. Relevant para thereof is “11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased, Md. Rijwan has purchased railway ticket bearing no. 89122716 and he a bonafide passenger as held by the Claim Tribunal itself. Because of the rush, the passenger took option of boarding the train side as the doors are also opened on the other side of the he has no knowledge nor intention to commit suicide and as such, because of untoward incident passenger suffered injury, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased is covered as untoward incident as In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence suggesting suicide, inflicted injury or commission of any criminal offence. attempted to board the train while it started MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 moving, the same may at the highest amount to negligence but certainly not to a criminal act attracting the statutory exclusion. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the provisions of Sections 123(c) and 124 receive a liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the legislation. Once it is established that the victim was a bona fide passenger and the death or injury resulted from an accidental fall from a train carrying pa follows on the principle of strict liability unless the Railways successfully establish that the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A. In the present case, the respondent has fai burden. 14. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon misreading of the evidence and an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act. The deceased was a bona fide passenge death was the direct consequence of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, which squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. None of contemplated under the proviso to Section 124 15. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is hereby set aside. The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased Gian Singh, are held entitled to compensation in accordance with the Railway Accidents and 2018 (O&M) g, the same may at the highest amount to negligence but certainly not to a criminal act attracting the statutory exclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the provisions of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act are b receive a liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the legislation. Once it is established that the victim was a bona fide passenger and the death or injury resulted from an accidental fall from a train carrying pa follows on the principle of strict liability unless the Railways successfully establish that the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to A. In the present case, the respondent has fai Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon misreading of the evidence and an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act. The deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid journey ticket and his death was the direct consequence of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, which squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. None of contemplated under the proviso to Section 124-A are attracted. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is ide. The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased Gian Singh, are held entitled to compensation in accordance with the Railway Accidents and g, the same may at the highest amount to negligence but certainly not to a The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the provisions A of the Railways Act are beneficial in nature and must receive a liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the legislation. Once it is established that the victim was a bona fide passenger and the death or injury resulted from an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, compensation follows on the principle of strict liability unless the Railways successfully establish that the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to A. In the present case, the respondent has failed to discharge such Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon misreading of the evidence and an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act. r holding a valid journey ticket and his death was the direct consequence of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, which squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. None of the exceptions A are attracted. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is ide. The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased Gian Singh, are held entitled to compensation in accordance with the Railway Accidents and 7 g, the same may at the highest amount to negligence but certainly not to a The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the provisions eneficial in nature and must receive a liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the legislation. Once it is established that the victim was a bona fide passenger and the death or injury ssengers, compensation follows on the principle of strict liability unless the Railways successfully establish that the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to led to discharge such Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon misreading of the evidence and an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act. r holding a valid journey ticket and his death was the direct consequence of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, which squarely falls within the expression "untoward incident" as the exceptions Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment/order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is ide. The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased Gian Singh, are held entitled to compensation in accordance with the Railway Accidents and MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2876 of 2018 Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, as applicable on the date of the accident. 16. Since t be finally adjudicated after enhancement of the statutory compensation, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour as 2019 (3) SCC 410. per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization, failing which the amount shall carry default till realization. The respondent amount along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy o whereupon the same shall be released to the appellants in accordance with law. 17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 01, 202 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2018 (O&M) Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, as applicable on the date of the Since the accident occurred on 19.07.2013 be finally adjudicated after enhancement of the statutory compensation, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of ₹ down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Radha Yadav 2019 (3) SCC 410. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum default till realization. The respondent-Railways shall deposit the entire awarded amount along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of from the date of receipt of a certified copy o whereupon the same shall be released to the appellants in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, as applicable on the date of the 19.07.2013, whereas the claim came to be finally adjudicated after enhancement of the statutory compensation, the ₹8,00,000/-, in terms of the law laid Union of India v. Radha Yadav reported The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization, @ 12% per annum from the date of Railways shall deposit the entire awarded amount along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, whereupon the same shall be released to the appellants in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 8 Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, as applicable on the date of the , whereas the claim came to be finally adjudicated after enhancement of the statutory compensation, the , in terms of the law laid reported 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization, from the date of Railways shall deposit the entire awarded amount along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of f this judgment, Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt