IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 14 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 694 of 2018 SANTOSH SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA Appearance:

Shri M.Shafiqullah - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Manhar Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellant being aggrieved by the judgement dated 06.10.2017, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No.OA/llu/BPL/2013/0282, whereby the claims Tribunal has rejected the claim filed on behalf of the claimant on the ground of self carelessness of claimant which tantamount to self inflicted injury putting himself life into utmost danger.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2013, claimant was travelling from Bhopal to Jhansi by Pathankot Express after purchasing the valid Ticket No. A90259737. When the train stopped in Sukhi Sewania Station, the appellant and other passenger of the train came out from the Train. Thereafter, after some time, the train started running without blowing any horn and the appellant tried to board into the moving train but got pushed by someone and the said unfortunate incident occurred. Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal Act claiming the compensation of Rs.4.00 lac with interest. Vide order dated 06.10.2017, learned Tribunal has found that the incident has been occurred because of the negligence and careless efforts made by the injured which falls under one of the exceptional clause of Section 124A of the Railway Act and rejected the claim petition.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the injured was travelling from Bhopal to Jhansi in Pathankot Express after purchasing the valid ticket No.A90259737. He was a bonafide passenger. When the train stopped in Sukhi Sewania Station, the appellant and other passenger got down from the Train, but thereafter the train without blowing any horn started moving and the appellant had no option but to board into the moving train, however, unfortunately, he got pushed by someone and got injured in an untoward incident. He submits that that Railway Claims Tribunal has erred in not accepting the evidence adduced by the claimant and not accepting the accident as untoward incident. The Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim application of the appellant by misconstruing the provision of the Act. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in law by ignoring the fact that Railway Act is beneficial piece of legislation, liberal purposive interpretation is applied and not literal or strict interpretation is applied. The documents available on records clearly indicate that appellant was travelling in train and got injured due to falling down from the running train. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement delivered in the case of Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India AIR 2010 SC 370.

4. He further argued that in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly passed the guidelines in respect of liability of the Railway compensation for accident caused to passenger holding that death or injury in course of boarding or de-boarding train will be untoward incident and victim shall be entitled for compensation and will not fall under the exception merely on plea of negligence of victim as contributing factor.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions putforth by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the alleged incident and injuries are the outcome of the appellant's own act of negligence. He further submits that the train was standing still on the down man line and not on the platform of the Sukhi Sewaniya Railway Station. He de-trained and was going alone side of the railway to the back side of the general coach, but in the meanwhile the train again started moving and when he tried to r