1. This matter was admitted on 10th February, 2026.

2. This appeal is filed by the original applicants challenging an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal), whereby, application made for compensation on account of death of Mr. Vinod Vachhani due to an accident came to be rejected. The Tribunal opined that the deceased was was not a bonafide passenger, since the ticket was not found at the time of the accident and further the accident does not fall within the meaning of “untoward incident” as defined by the Railways Act, 1989, since the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station.

3. I have heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the original applicants and Mr. Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The deceased was a self-employed businessman engaged in the business of electrical goods. On 10th November, 2009, the deceased boarded a train from Ulhasnagar Station to travel to Dadar Station for his business. As per the Station Master's Report dated 10th November, 2009 prepared at 08:00 hours, it is stated that a message was received from travelling public, that a male passenger is hit by an unknown train and seriously injured between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station. This message was received around 07:50 hours and the said report was prepared at 08.50 hours.

5. The Railway Authorities reached the accident spot and found the dead body of the deceased. On search of his personal belongings, a purse containing driving license, PAN Card, mobile phone, watch, ring and cash were found. An inquest panchnama was prepared, in which, it is stated that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train. A Post-Mortem was conducted by the government hospital in which the cause of death was mentioned as “shock due to head injury”.

6. The applicants made an application to the Tribunal seeking compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. A written statement was filed by the Railways and an investigation report was also prepared in the year 2010 by the Railway Authorities. Evidence was led by both the parties and finally the Tribunal rejected the application on 31st March, 2016. It is on this backdrop, that the present appeal has been filed by the original applicants.

7. Two issues arise for my consideration, namely, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the accident which resulted into his death was not on account of “untoward incident” as defined by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

8. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of “untoward incidents”, which entitles a passenger who has been injured or his dependant in case of death to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof. Proviso to Section 124A provides that no compensation shall be payable if the death or injury is due to suicide, self inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease, unless it arises out of an “untoward incident”.

9. Explanation to Section 124A defines “passenger” to include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an “untoward incident”. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 2 defines certain words, and the meaning given therein should be applied unless the context otherwise requires. Explanation to Section 124A defines “passenger” specifically for the purpose of compensation and, therefore, the definition of “passenger” in Section 2 would not be applicable when it comes to provisions of Section 124A. Explanation to Section 124A provides that a person is a passenger if he has purchased a valid ticket for travelling on any date by a train carrying passengers and becomes a victim of an “untoward incident”. This is in sharp contrast to Section 2(29) which defines passenger to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.

10. The phrase “with” is absent when it comes to the provisions of Section 124A. Therefore, the contention of the Railways that the ticket should be carried by a passenger and found at the time of the accident for being eligible to claim compensation, cannot be accepted. In the instant case, though the inquest panchnama records that purse, PAN Card, mobile phone, etc. were found it does not state that the ticket was found. However, alongwith the application to the Tribunal, the applicants have enclosed Monthly Season Ticket (MST) for the period from 21st October, 2009 to 20th November, 2009 in the name of the deceased. On the said first class MST ID No. 856966 is mentioned and the applicants have also enclosed the said ID Card issued by the Railways, which bears the same number. The date of the incident i.e. 10th November, 2009 falls within the period during which the MST was valid. Non-mentioning of the MST found at the time of the search by the Railway Authorities could be an error. However, assuming that the deceased was not carrying the MST at the time of the incident, whether he could still be treated as a “bonafide passenger”.

11. I have already opined that the term “passenger” as defined for the purpose of Section 124A requires a person for being eligible for compensation to have purchased a valid ticket for travelling and becomes a victim of an “untoward incident”. This is in sharp contrast to Section 2(29) which requires a person to carry the ticket with him for being treated as a passenger. In the instant case, it is not the submission of the Railways that the ID Card and the MST filed alongwith the application is not issued by them or is fraudulent. Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased had purchased a valid MST for travel from Ulhasnagar Railway Station to Dadar Railway Station. The requirement of carrying the ticket at the time of the incident for being treated as a passenger is not borne out from the explanation to Section 124A. The requirement is purchase of a valid ticket, which is not disputed in the present case. It is not uncommon that many times a person forgets to carry the MST while travelling. If, however, the claimants produces the ticket with the ID alongwith the original application and such ticket has not been disputed by the Railways, then in my view, and more particularly keeping in mind the objective of Section 124A and the definition therein, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

12. Another way of looking at the issue is that the legislature consciously thought of not providing the phrase “with” in Explanation (ii) to Section 124A, as contrast to Section 2(29). During the accident the belongings of a victim gets scattered and difficult to find and probably it could be with this intention in mind that the phrase “with” is not appearing in Explanation (ii) to Section 124A. This interpretation goes in favour of the claimants in the present case. It is also possible to interpret that the phrase “passenger” on a conjoint reading of Section 2(29) with explanation (ii) to Section 124A would mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket and includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling. The inclusive part in the Explanation would cover a situation where the claimant has to prove purchase of a valid ticket and the requirement of finding a ticket at the spot of the incident is dispensed with. In the instant case, though the MST may not have been found as per the inquest panchnama, it was produced alongwith the original application and the genuineness of which has not been questioned by the Railway Authorities. Therefore, even on this count the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi ((2019) 3 SCC 572) has observed that even if the ticket is not found at the time of the accident and later on an affidavit is filed which shows that the deceased or the injured was having a valid ticket, then the claim cannot be rejected on the ground of ticket having not been found at the time of the accident. In my view, the case of the applicants stands on a much stronger footing since in this case though “assuming” that the deceased was not carrying MST at the time of the accident, but when the claim was lodged for compensation, the applicants have filed the MST and the Railway ID Card which the Railways have not found to be non-genuine.

14. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kamal Chandrakant Shikhare & Ors. ( FA/659/2014 decided on 08th December, 2025) wherein it was held as under :-

                   “6. Admittedly, the local pass was not found at the site of the accident. However, the wife of deceased in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination produced the local pass along with the identity card. It is not disputed that the local pass was valid on the date of the accident. The genuineness of the local pass though disputed by the appellant could not be proved as to how it is non-genuine and what steps did they take if according to them it was a non-genuine. Therefore, the genuineness of the local pass stands proved. There could be various reasons that on the date of the accident the deceased may have forgotten the local pass at home but that would not disentitle the compensation amount to the dependents. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger cannot be faulted.”

15. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger merely because the MST was not found from the search of the body of the deceased, but was later on enclosed with the original application, cannot be accepted. In my view, the deceased is a “passenger” as defined by the explanation to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

16. I make it clear that the above analysis does not mean that a passenger should not carry a valid ticket while travelling. It is the duty and in the interest of the passenger to travel alongwith a valid ticket, but the Court cannot rule out that on many occasions, a person does forget to carry a valid MST and, therefore, atleast for the purpose of Section 124A, a construction which will advance the object of the welfare legislation should be adopted than an interpretation which will deprive an eligible claimant to claim compensation, moreso when ticket is enclosed with the application.

17. The next issue which arises for my consideration is whether the accident which resulted into the death of the deceased can be treated as an “untoward incident” as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

18. As per the Station Master's Report, which is the first document prepared at 08:50 hours, it states that a message from travelling public was received stating that a male person was hit by an unknown train resulting into head injury between Kalyan Railway Station and Thakurli Railway Station. The inquest panchnama is prepared on the same day i.e. 10th November, 2009 at 10:25 hours. It is important to note that the inquest panchnama prepared at 10:25 hours states the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train, whereas, in the evidence of Mr. Bhere, Deputy Station Master, who was on duty at Kalyan Railway Station on the day of incident states that at around 09:00 hours, a memo was received from the guard of TL-8 Train stating that a person was run over by his train. The station diary has been annexed to the evidence of Mr. Bhere and the date mentioned on the station diary is 23rd January, 2015. There is no date of 10th November, 2009 in the said diary.

19. It is also important to note that if at 09:00 hours a memo was received from the guard of TL-8 Train stating that a person was run over by his train then why there is no reference of this memo or the number of the train in the inquest panchnama which was prepared at 10:25 hours, much after what is stated in the station diary. It is also important to note that the signature on the Station Master's Report of the Station Manager does not tally with the signature of Mr. Bhere who has not only signed affidavit before the Tribunal, but whose signature also appears on the station diary which is annexed to the said affidavit. On a bare perusal of the two signatures, there is a huge difference between the two and, therefore, the evidence led by the Railways, cannot be relied upon.

20. The inquest panchnama is prepared in the presence of two panchas. These panchas were not eyewitness to the incident, but it is stated by the panchas that as per their opinion and police opinion, the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train resulting into his death. Such an opinion by persons who were not eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon for arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train.

21. The Post-Mortem Report states the cause of death as “shock due to head injury”. When a person falls from a moving train between two Railway Stations and hits the ground or the track on which he falls, certainly the speed and gravity at which a person falls would severely injure a person's skull or head. This reinforces the submission made by the applicants that the deceased died on account of an accidental fall from a moving train.

22. The Tribunal has also relied upon an investigation report prepared on 09th June, 2010 for rejecting the application. The said report is prepared based on the Station Master's Report and inquest panchnama. I have already given my views on both these documents above and, therefore, any conclusions in the inquiry report based on the said two documents will meet the same fate as that of Station Master's Report and the inquest panchnama. Further the inquiry report states that this is the prima facie view. Though this report was prepared on 9th June, 2010 there is no mention of the fact which is stated in the station diary that the guard of TL-8 Train informed that a person was run over by his train. In the inquiry report, for the first time, an observation is made that the deceased was hit by an unknown local train while crossing the Railway track. The averment of crossing the Railway track was never made in the earlier document. Even the author of the inquiry report was not examined by the Railways. Therefore, I have my grave doubts on the reliance placed on the investigation report by the Tribunal for rejecting the application. In the written statement also, based on the above inquiry report, it is the stand of the Railways that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track. There is no eyewitness to this incident. Therefore, the submission that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track is merely based on assumption and surmises without any iota of evidence in that regard.

23. The Railways have led evidence of Mr. Bhere. I have already observed that the signature of Mr. Bhere appearing on the affidavit and the station diary does not tally with the signature appearing on the Station Master's Report. For the first time in 2015, the Railways have stated that the guard of train number TL-8 informed that a person was run over by his train. The Railways have not led the evidence of the guard, and this fact has come up for the first time in the affidavit of Mr. Bhere in the year 2015, when the accident happened in the year 2009.

24. In the Station Master's Report, the reason against which a tick mark is found, states “hit by unknown train while trespassing”. I fail to understand as to on what basis the said tick mark is made when there was no eyewitness to show that the deceased was trespassing.

25. The applicants have led the evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased. Certainly, they were not eyewitness to the incident, but the mother in her evidence has stated that she was staying with the deceased and the deceased has left the house at 07:30 am to go to Dadar for his business purpose. This fact, when connected with the timing of the incident goes on to show, on the basis of preponderance of probability that the deceased left the house at 07:30 hours took a train to travel to Dadar and at around 07:50 hours fell down from a moving train, resulting into his death. If the deceased was hit by a train, then the Motormen would have informed the Station Master of the nearest Railway Station, but there is no such averment, except for the first time coming in the affidavit of 2015 of Mr. Bhere, on which, I have already expressed my views above.

26. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the Post-Morterm Report for coming to a conclusion that the injury suggest that the deceased has not fallen from the running train, but died under other circumstances, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal is not a medical expert to give an opinion on the basis of the injuries. Therefore, this reasoning cannot be accepted.

27. Proviso to Section 124A provides for refusal to pay compensation if the death occurs due to self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication or insanity. In my view, the incident referred to hereinabove does not fall under any of the exceptions, nor has any case been made out before the Tribunal by the Railways that the incident falls within any of the exceptions.

28. For all the above reasons, I hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the accident was on account of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

29. The Tribunal’s order is quashed. The original applicants are directed to lodge a claim for receipt of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization, subject to a cap of Rs.8,00,000/-.

30. The amount should be remitted to the bank accounts of the claimants within eight weeks of the claimants giving their bank details.

31. Appeal is allowed in above terms.