Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 36
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - DELHI
Mr. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, CJ, Mr. MUKESH NIGAM, J
SH MOHIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
OA (II u)/DLI/301/2024
Sh. Prashant Mehra for Smt. Ila Choudhary, counsel for the applicant. Ms. Jatinder Kaur, counsel for the respondent.
Injuries sustained while boarding or deboarding a train qualify as untoward incidents under the Railways Act, entitling victims to compensation regardless of negligence.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123
(C) and 124-A - Claim for compensation due to injuries sustained in an untoward incident while deboarding a train - Applicant was a bona fide passenger and entitled to compensation despite claims of negligence - The Tribunal held that injuries sustained during boarding or deboarding a train qualify as an untoward incident under the Act. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 10)
(B) Liability - The principle of strict liability applies, and negligence of the victim cannot negate the claim for compensation under the no-fault theory. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant suffered double amputation of legs after falling from a moving train while attempting to deboard. He had purchased a valid ticket and claimed compensation for his injuries.
Findings of Court:
The applicant was found to be a bona fide passenger and entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation for his injuries, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the accident.
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger and if the injuries were due to an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and that injuries sustained while boarding or deboarding a train are considered untoward incidents, thus entitling the victim to compensation.
Result: Claim application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injured suffered amputation (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent claims negligence (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. tribunal formulated issues (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. injured was a bona fide passenger (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. claim application is allowed (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman (Oral) :-
1. Mohit Kumar, the present applicant, as per the averment made in annexure ‘1’ to the claim application, suffered injuries in an untoward incident resulting into amputation of both legs. It is pleaded in annexure A to the claim application that on 07th March 2024, Mohit Kumar applicant (hereinafter called ‘injured’) came to Kailsa Railway Station and purchased a valid railway journey ticket for undertaking journey from Kailsa Railway Station to Moradabad Railway Station. On 07th March 2024 itself, the injured boarded train no. 04336 called the Ghaziabad-Moradabad passenger train for going to Moradabad. It is the case of the injured that he came near the gate of the train compartment for deboarding at Moradabad Railway Station when due to a sudden jerk and jolt of the train and push given by co-passengers, he fell from the running train and suffered injuries. The applicant was rescued from the spot in an ambulance and taken to the District Hospital, Moradabad. Further, for better treatment, he got himself admitted at Narayab Hospital, Garh Road Meerut, where he remained admitted from 8th March 2024 to 14th March 2024.
2. Notice of the claim application was issued. The respondent filed written statement by way of reply along with the statutory report of DRM exhibit R-1. In para 3 of the preliminary objection taken in the WS, the following stand has been taken by respondent :-
“3. That during inquiry it came on record that station master Moradabad, in his statement, has stated that on 07.03.2024 at about 23.45 hrs. one passenger came to him and gave information that one person suffered amputation of legs at platform no. 5, near to Delhi side bridge and the station master immediately gave information to Railway Hospital, Moradabad and RPF/GRP Moradabad and Railway doctor Dr. Faizan came and provided first aid to the injured and thereafter the injured was admitted in District Hospital Moradabad via Ambulance. Further it also came on record that while the Loco pilot of train No. 04336 was started from Moradabad Railway Station to place the train in yard, no one suffered injuries from front side of the train and he was not having any such information, as on the backside of the train, there was no staff available, as such it is crystal clear that the incident took place due to negligence of the applicant himself. Hence the claim application deserves to be dismissed..”(Reproduced in Verbatim)
3. In the statutory report of DRM, Ex. R-1, it is concluded that the applicant was negligently deboarding from train no. 04336, and from the personal search of the applicant, no journey ticket was recovered. The conclusion drawn in the DRM, Ex. R-1 is reproduced below:-
4. The Tribunal, on 16th October 2024 formulated the following issues for adjudication:-
“1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of the incident?
2. Whether the injuries sustained by the applicant are on account of an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(C) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? If so, to what extent?
3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicant is entitled?
4. Relief, if any?”
Findings: -
Issue No. 1: -
5. Mohit Kumar, appeared before the Tribunal. He tendered his affidavit towards examination-in-chief. He was examined as AW-1. In cross-examination, he stated that the occurrence had taken place when he was deboarding from the train. He further stated that at that time the train was not moving. He denied that the incident had taken place due to negligence on his part.
6. We have heard Sh. Prashant Mehra, counsel for the applicant and Ms. Jatinder Kaur, counsel for the
