Railway Claims Tribunal: Compensation for Accidents and Lost Goods (2026)

How-to · Railways · Tribunals

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

If a passenger dies or is injured in a railway accident or an untoward incident, the claim for compensation goes to the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), not a civil court. The law is a no-fault one: under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the railway is liable for an untoward incident even without proof of wrong or neglect. The RCT also decides claims for lost or damaged goods and for refunds of fares and freight. This guide explains what it decides, who can claim, how to file, and the appeal to the High Court. Last verified October 2026.

01The problem: proving fault is not the issue

Many families assume they must prove the railway was careless to get compensation for a death or injury on the train. For an untoward incident, that is not the law. The Railways Act creates a no-fault liability, so the railway must pay compensation even if no one was negligent.

The real battleground is different. The railway usually contests the claim on two narrow points: whether the person was a bona fide passenger, and whether what happened fits the legal definition of an untoward incident. So a claim stands or falls on those facts, not on blame. Knowing this reshapes how the claim is prepared.

02What the RCT decides

The RCT was set up under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and it took over claims that earlier went to civil courts and the claims commissioners. It decides:

• compensation for death or injury in railway accidents and untoward incidents, under the Railways Act, 1989;
• claims for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods and animals carried by rail;
• claims for refund of fares and freight.

The RCT sits in benches across the country, and a claim is filed at the bench that has territorial jurisdiction.

03Untoward incidents and no-fault liability

An untoward incident is defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and includes a terrorist act, a violent attack, robbery or dacoity, and the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124A makes the railway administration liable to pay compensation for death or injury from an untoward incident, whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default.

There are exceptions. The railway is not liable where the death or injury is due to the passenger own criminal act, suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, the passenger own insanity, or a medical condition unconnected with the incident. Compensation amounts are fixed by rules made under the Act.

The Supreme Court in Kamukayi v. Union of India (2023) held that where a bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident, the burden shifts to the railway, and documents such as the FIR and inquest report should not be ignored. A valid ticket is not the only proof that a person was a bona fide passenger.

04Who can claim, and how to file

For death, the dependents or legal representatives of the deceased can claim. For injury, the injured passenger claims. For goods, the consignor or consignee claims. For a refund, the person who paid the fare or freight claims.

• Prepare the application. File the claim in the prescribed form with the RCT, setting out the incident, the relationship to the deceased or injured, and the documents relied on.
• Attach proof. Attach the ticket or pass if available, the FIR and inquest report, the post-mortem or injury certificate, and proof of dependency for a death claim.
• File at the right bench. File at the RCT bench with territorial jurisdiction, and serve the railway administration.

05Common disputes

Most contests at the RCT are about the same two points. First, was the person a bona fide passenger? The railway often argues there was no valid ticket, but courts have held that a ticket is not the only proof, and the railway bears the burden to show otherwise. Second, was it an untoward incident at all, or did the person fall while crossing the tracks or in some way outside the definition?

These are findings of fact, and High Courts have set aside RCT orders that ignored the FIR, inquest and investigation reports. A claim is therefore built around documentary proof of the incident and of the passenger status, not around proving fault.

06Appeal to the High Court

An appeal from an RCT order lies to the High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against every order of the Tribunal that is not an interlocutory order. The appeal is generally filed within 90 days.

Courts differ on condoning delay. One High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to a Section 23 appeal, so an appeal beyond 90 days could not be entertained, while another has condoned a delay. Because the position is not settled, treat the 90-day period as firm and do not rely on condonation. For the wider picture of appeals from tribunals, see appeals from tribunals to the Supreme Court.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

A railway compensation claim often travels from the Tribunal up to the High Court, and the outcome turns on how judges have read phrases like untoward incident and bona fide passenger. Claw lets you test those phrases against the case law, searching more than 30 crore judgments by section, party or advocate and returning results in under five seconds, so you can see how courts have applied Section 124A of the Railways Act and Section 23 of the RCT Act. Supreme Court judgments go back to 1950 and High Court judgments to 1990. You can also keep a live claim in view, with its cases, orders and hearings tracked across 9,102 courts, benches and forums. For the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.

Create a free Claw account to follow your next date and pull the rulings that decide these claims. Claw does not use customer case documents to train its AI models.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (RCT Act 1987 and Railways Act 1989): indiacode.nic.in
• Railway Claims Tribunal: rct.gov.in
• Supreme Court of India (Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023): main.sci.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Compensation and limitation depend on your facts, so check the current Acts and rules and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions