Intention to inflict injury is required for self-inflicted injury, and mere negligence does not disentitle compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal filed by a Passenger/Appellant, who is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.02.2018, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No.OA (IIu)/NGP/2015/2007, rejecting his application under the Railways Act 1989 (the “Railways Act”).

2. The Appellant Laxman Ganesh Kanhojia was travelling on 14.02.2018 by Train No.11040 Up Maharashtra Express from Bhandara to Nagpur. On the fateful day, it is claimed by him that he was standing near the lavatory of the compartment, at the time when due to a sudden jerk near D-Cabin, Mominpura area at Nagpur Railway Station, he fell down from the running train and suffered injuries, resulting which his leg got severed. He was admitted to Mayo Hospital Nagpur, where he was diagnosed as having railway track injury below the knee amputation, however, the closure was done above the knee on 08.03.2014. It is not in dispute that the Appellant was a bona fide passenger holding a valid journey ticket, which was verified from the Chief Booking Clerk.

3. Soon after the incident, a statement dated 14.02.2014 (A-31 of the Record and Proceedings) was given by the Appellant to the Railway Government Police (“GRP”), where he has stated that he alighted from the running train, but he fell down and his right leg came under the wheels of the train due to which his leg was severed from below the knee. However, in the claim made by him, the Appellant/Claimant has stated that he was standing near the lavatory and because of the sudden jerk, he fell down as he could not balance himself and his right leg came under the wheels of the train near Mominpura area, and thereafter, he was admitted to Mayo Hospital and during his treatment, his right leg was amputated above the knee. The Appellant has stated this in his affidavit dated 29.11.2016 before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the Appellant mainly on the basis of his statement made to the Government GRP on 14.02.2014 that he alighted from the running train near D-Cabin, but fell down and his right leg came under the wheels of the train near Mominpura area due to which his leg below the knee got severed. The Tribunal also relied upon the depositions of the Deputy Station Superintendent, Nagpur D-Cabin (RW-1) and Guard of the said train (RW-2) that there was no jerk in the train while travelling between Bhandara to Nagpur (RW-1) and that it was not true that the Appellant was travelling by the said train and fell down due to jerk in the train nor that there is any message about any dash or runover of any person (RW-2). The Tribunal also relied upon the conclusion of the DRM’s Report that the claimant fell down and came under the train while alighting from the moving train at D-Cabin, Nagpur Railway Station, resulting which his leg got severed. As no other evidence was brought on record, the Tribunal has held that the allegation of sudden jerk in the train is not established. The Tribunal observed that the inquiry reveals that there was negligence on the part of the Claimant as he tried to alight from the running train hurriedly and that there is a confession of the Appellant to that effect.

5. The Tribunal has observed that the nature of the incident does not fall in the category of an untoward incident of “fallen down” from the train. That the Applicant has been injured due to his carelessness and negligence, and therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation as the same is a self inflicted injury. The Tribunal has elaborated on this and observed that such self inflicted injury could be irrespective of the intention acting with total recklessness and throwing all norms of caution to the wind regardless of his age, circumstances and acted to his detriment. The Tribunal has also observed that all the facts and circumstances establish that the act of the Appellant was with full knowledge of the imminent possibility of endangering his life or limb, and therefore, it is squarely