1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants challenging the order dated 29 September 2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai whereby the claim of the original applicants came to be rejected on the ground that the reason for the deceased dying was on account of self inflicted injury and not on account of an “untoward incident.”

2. On 4 April 2011, the deceased was travelling from Navsari to Borivali in an Express train. Between Virar and Nalasopara Railway station, the deceased fell down. The passenger travelling in the same compartment informed the guard and the train was stopped. The guard informed the station master about the incident and the body was pulled out from the wheels of the compartment. The guard in his report to the station master stated that the passenger travelling in the compartment informed him that the deceased was trying to alight from the train between Virar and Nalasopara Railway station. It was on the basis of this fact that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died not on account of an “untoward incident” but on account of self inflicted injury.

3. Insofar as the issue of bonafide passenger is concerned, ticket was found from the body of the deceased and therefore it is undisputed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in the train from which he fell down.

4. The whole basis of the impugned order is that the guard informed the station master that the deceased was trying to alight from a moving train and got entangled in the wheel. This was again on the basis of passenger travelling in the same compartment mentioning to the guard. Admittedly, neither the said passenger nor the guard was examined by the respondent- railways before the Tribunal. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to this aspect. Had the Railway examined the passenger or the guard or any expert who would have given evidence that a person falling from moving train can never get entangled in the wheel, then something could have been said. However, in the absence of any such evidence being led by the Railway, the reasoning on the basis of the statement of the passenger and the guard , which were not examined cannot be accepted.

5. There is no eye witness to the passenger alighting from the moving train and the person who is claimed to have said so is not examined by the railway authorities. It is also important to note that generally when a person falls while alighting from a train or from a moving train, his body is found away by the train but it is also possible that in some circumstances, the body may get entangled in the wheels of the same train from which the passenger was travelling. It is for the expert person to certify as to under what circumstances a body can be said to have got entangled in the wheels. But in the instant case, no such expert was examined.

6. It is settled position that in such type of matters and in case of beneficial legislation, benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the person who has met with an accident.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants is justified in relying upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Bala Pujari Vs. Union of India(FAO No.572 of 2020 dated 29 November 2025) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed in paragraph 16 that it is a matter of common occurrence, judicially recognized that a passenger who falls from a moving train may subsequently be dragged or run over either by the same train or by another passing train. The subsequent aggravation of injuries does not alter the intrinsic character of the initial mishap as an accidental fall.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants is also justified in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi((2019) 3 SCC 572) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a mere negligence of any particular degree cannot be considered as “self inflicted injury.” The death or injury in course of boarding or de-boarding the train will fall within “untoward incident”.

9. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter can be remanded back to the Tribunal. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted. The accident took place in April 2011 and we are in January 2026. After 15 years, to remand the matter for fresh evidence in the facts of the present case and the present legislation will run counterproductive. Therefore, such a request is not accepted. No second inning should be allowed without justification when in first round, no evidence could be laid by the respondent- railways.

10. The following judgments are also relevant wherein on very similar situation the claim was allowed :-

                   (i) Rajpati & Ors. v. Union of India(2014 SCC OnLine Del 2540)

                   “ 7. No doubt, the body is found in a cut up position, however, it is not inconceivable that while falling from the train, the deceased could have got entangled in the steps and the wheels of the same train in which he was travelling and surely which type of incidents are not unknown. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot only on the ground that the body of the deceased was in a cut up condition hold that the case was a case of run over and not of falling from a train.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

                   ii) Sh. Prempal Singh & Anr. v. Union of India(2018 SCC OnLine Del 9571)

                   “7. The reasoning in the impugned order that because the deceased was cut into halves: one part found inside the railway tracks and the other outside, the death could not have been caused due to accidental falling from a moving train, is flawed. The impossibility of a passenger being so crushed after a fall from a moving train has not been conclusively established in law, so as to obviate all such claims for compensation. It is possible that the deceased while standing near the overcrowded passenger compartment door, slipped down while holding on to the door-railing, and frantically tried to recover and re-board the train - with his legs flailing violently, and in the valiant and violent melee his legs or his body could have unfortunately come under the wheels of the train leading to his being consumed in the fatal accident. As long as such possibility exists, the claim cannot be ousted or denied on technical assumptions. There is not a divine camera which could replay the actual manner of the fatality, but all factors lead to the inexorable conclusion that a bonafide passenger died in an untoward train accident. There is also no reason why the deceased would be walking the railway tracks in an odd place en-route his destination – his home. It is not that he lived near the site of the accident or that he had any regular business anywhere near the place of the accident. Thus the inference that he died while crossing the tracks, is unwarranted and untenable.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

                   (iii) Smt. Ram Payari v. Union of India(2014 SCC OnLine Del 1335)

                   “13. I would like to state that except for a divine camera which can capture each and every detail of falling from the train, it is surely not humanly possible to hold simply on the basis of a body being cut up that the body cannot be cut up on account of falling from the train, inasmuch as, in many incidents the deceased can get entangled in the steps and thereafter under the wheels of the same train in which he is travelling and hence the body can get cut. In another case the person who falls from the train can be hit by various railway equipments such as signals, poles, junction box, wires etc. etc, and which are there on the tracks. Therefore, it depends on the fact of each case if a cut up body is found whether the same is a case of running over or it is a case of fall from the train.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

11. In view of above, since the respondent-railways have not examined the person, who made the statement that the person travelling, was alighting from a moving train and further the railways has not examined any expert on this issue and furthermore there is no dispute that the deceased died while travelling in the train, and the deceased having a valid ticket died in the accident, this case cannot be treated as a death by “self inflicted injury”.

12. In view of above, the impugned order dated 29 September 2014 is quashed and set aside. The appellants/applicants to make application to the respondent for the compensation of Rs. 4 lakh alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment subject to a cap of Rs.8 lakh. If such an application is made, the amount to be remitted to the bank accounts of the appellants/applicants within eight weeks.

13. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.