On July 19, 2012, Liaqat Ali was traveling from Ghaziabad to Shahdara, Delhi, having purchased a valid ticket earlier that day. Due to the heavy rush in the train compartment, he struggled to find a secure place to stand near the door. As the train approached Shahdara Station, a surge of passengers gathered near the exit, causing Ali to lose his balance and fall, resulting in fatal injuries.

Eyewitness accounts, particularly from a passenger named Mandeep, suggested that Ali fell from the moving train onto Platform No. 4. Despite this, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, asserting that Ali was not a bonafide passenger, as they believed he was traveling in an empty coach rack, which did not stop at Shahdara.

The primary contention before the Tribunal was whether Ali was a bona fide passenger on the EMU train and if his death constituted an "untoward incident" as defined by the Railways Act, 1989. The claimants presented substantial evidence, including the recovery of Ali's valid ticket during police investigations, which was pivotal in establishing his status as a passenger.

Despite the evidence, the Tribunal relied heavily on the DRM report, which suggested that Ali had jumped from the empty coach rack. However, this report lacked corroboration and was based on hearsay, lacking clarity and precision. Notably, the DRM report did not indicate who the anonymous passenger was that reported the incident.

The court's analysis highlighted the inadequacy of the DRM report and emphasized the validity of the ticket recovered from Ali. Citing the principles laid out in previous Supreme Court rulings, it was determined that injuries sustained while boarding or deboarding a train qualify as untoward incidents, warranting compensation regardless of any claims of contributory negligence by the victim.

In conclusion, the court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimants' assertion that Liaqat Ali was indeed a bonafide passenger on the EMU train at the time of the incident. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for the assessment of appropriate compensation based on the rules applicable at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal has been directed to resolve the compensation matter within eight weeks, ensuring timely relief for the grieving family. The case serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of protecting the rights of rail users and the necessity of fair compensation in the face of tragic accidents. The court's decision underscores a commitment to justice and highlights the need for thorough investigations and transparent processes in railway accident claims.