Short answer
Generally, no. A person hit by a train while crossing or walking on the tracks does not fall within the statutory definition of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c), and is not a passenger of a colliding/derailing train under Section 124. Such cases fall outside Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, regardless of the victim’s ticket status or intent to travel.
Why the statutory language excludes it
• Section 123(c)(ii) covers only the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers — it requires the person to have already been on a moving train and fallen off it
• Section 123(c)(iii) covers fire, explosion, or accident to the train itself — not injury to a pedestrian on the tracks
• Section 124 (“accident”) covers collision or derailment of a train, and compensates that train’s own passengers — not a person struck while crossing
• A person walking on or crossing the tracks, then struck by a moving train, does not fit any of these enumerated categories
Why ticket or travel intent does not change this
The bona fide passenger doctrine (from cases like Rina Devi) determines whether someone counts as a passenger — it does not expand the statutory definition of “untoward incident” itself. Even a ticket holder or a person genuinely intending to board a train, if struck while on the tracks rather than on/falling from a train, generally cannot bring the claim within Section 123(c). The threshold problem is the nature of the incident, not the status of the victim.
Where the remedy lies instead
• Ordinary civil suit for negligence against the railway administration — e.g., failure to fence the track, absence of warning signals or subways at a known crossing point
• Such suits fall outside RCT jurisdiction and proceed before the appropriate civil court, on ordinary tortious negligence principles, not the no-fault Chapter XIII scheme
Compensation, if any, depends on proving actual negligence by the railway — unlike the no-fault regime under Sections 124/124A