Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Railways Act, 1989
Section 190 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that
the phrase "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers" in Section 123(c) must be given a liberal, purposive
construction to further the benevolent object of the Act. The relevant
excerpts are produced below:
Jameela & Ors vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2010
(iii) The appellants argue that the Tribunal's reliance on the DRM report,
prepared years after the incident, is arbitrary, especially when all
contemporaneous documents such as inquest report, PM report and
final police report consistently attribute death to accidental fall from a
running train. They submit that such speculative reasoning cannot
substitute statutory presumption under Section 124A once accidental
fall is shown. They rely on Jameela and Ors. v. Union of India2, which
held that accidental fall from train constitutes an "untoward incident"
Smt. Dharambiri Devi And Ors. vs The Ministry Of Railway And Anr. on 13 March, 2008
9. The Tribunal undertakes a detailed analysis of the post-mortem report
and injury pattern, emphasising that the body was severed into two
pieces and that the cause of death was "railway cut injuries"; while
accepting that such injuries are consistent with run-over, it refuses to
infer that they resulted from an accidental fall from a moving train,
reasoning that, in a fall, centrifugal force would normally fling the
body away from the track, not under the wheels, thereby invoking and
applying the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Dharambiri Devi (supra)
regarding trajectory and impossibility of a body being cut into two in a
simple fall.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Rina Devi on 9 May, 2018
10. While the judgment cites Rina Devi (supra), especially the proposition
that mere presence of a body on railway premises is not conclusive of
bona fide passengership, the Tribunal primarily uses Rina Devi (supra)
Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
to justify a strict evidentiary threshold, emphasising that there is "not
an iota" of direct evidence of accidental fall, that the recovery of a
ticket without proof of purchase or boarding is insufficient, and that
the applicants have failed to discharge the initial burden of proof
necessary even under a beneficial statute.
Section 129 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Rajni Bhat vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2018
21. The Tribunal found that the deceased was not shown to be a bona fide
passenger because (a) the ticket's authenticity and recovery were
disputed, and (b) an initial error in naming the train suggested
fabrication. This Court rejects this approach. As recently held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajni v. Union of India6, mere non-
recovery of a ticket is not ipso facto fatal if the claimant lays a credible
prima facie foundation of travel.
1