Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 1070
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - DELHI
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, CJ, ROOPA SRINIVASAN, J
Hemlata – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA/II(U)/DLI/357/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. B.S. Mahur
For the Respondents: Sh. R.P.S. Tomar
Negligence in boarding does not bar compensation; incidents under Railways Act considered 'untoward.'
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 123(c)(2) - Claim for compensation - The applicants, being dependents of the deceased, sought compensation after his untimely death due to injuries sustained while boarding a train. The Tribunal held that the incident constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Act, entitling the applicants to compensation despite claims of negligence by the railway administration. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Burden of Proof - The respondent's claim of negligence was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the Tribunal emphasized that mere negligence does not negate entitlement to relief provided under the no-fault regime of the Railways Act. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket, tragically died while attempting to board a moving train, resulting in critical injuries. Adequate identity and relationship proof were provided by the applicants.
Findings of Court:
The claim was validated, establishing the death as an untoward incident under the Railways Act, warranting compensation to the dependents.
Issues: The case examined whether the death was caused by an untoward incident within the ambit of the Railways Act and verified the dependency of the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal reaffirmed that incidents incurred while boarding or alighting do not fall under self-inflicted injuries, particularly in circumstances of negligence, under the no-fault liability laws.
Result: Claim application allowed; Rs. 8,00,000/- compensation ordered with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim filed under railway claims tribunal act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. negligence does not negate entitlement to compensation. (Para 5) |
JUDGEMENT
Ms. Roopa Srinivasan, Hon’ble Member (Technical) :-
1. This is an Application filed by four applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987, against the respondent Railway administration, seeking compensation for the death of Manmohan, age 39 as the result of an alleged untoward incident. The four applicants are - Hemlata (wife), Ankush (minor son), Ankit (minor son) and Anshika (minor daughter). Subsequent to the filing of the application it emerged that the mother of Manmohan- Somvati is also to be impleaded in the matter. There are thus five applicants who have sought compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987.
Case of the applicants
2. On 04.09.2024, Manmohan along with three cousin brothers (Dinesh, Ramvir and Rajvir) , purchased a ticket for Rs. 120/- for four persons bearing No. UCC-38169526 for undertaking a journey from Firozabad to Farrukhabad. They came to Firozabad railway station in the early hours in the morning of 04.09.2024 to board the Tundla Farrukhabad passenger train. While boarding the train, Manmohan slipped and fell below the train and his leg got amputated. He was rushed by his family members to the Government Trauma Center Firozabad in a private vehicle. However, because of the grievous nature of his injuries, by the time he reached the Trauma Center, Manmohan was declared dead by the doctors there. The five applicants have sought compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for the death of Manmohan (hereinafter the “deceased”) in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act , 1989.
3. The applicants submitted the following along with their claim application (1) Aadhaar Card of the deceased and the applicants (2) Bank passbook of the applicant No. 1 (3) Parivar Registar, among others.
4. Hemlata, who is the wife of the deceased and Applicant No. 1, tendered her affidavit towards examination in chief on oath as AW-1. She stated that she was not an eye-witness to the incident, nor to the purchase of the ticket by the deceased. She stated that she received information about the incident from the cousin of the deceased who was also a co-traveller on the journey.
Case of the Respondents
5. The Respondents in their Preliminary Objections have highlighted that while the deceased was a bonafide traveler because a valid ticket was found, however since he was trying to board a moving train, the death was caused because of his own negligence, he was therefore not entitled for compensation. In this regard Para Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 9 of the Preliminary Objections filed by the respondent are reproduced below:-
“4. That as per the DRM report, on 04.09.2024 Sh. Roop kishor was posted as train manager on Train no. 01918. The train arrived at Firozabad station at 06:10 hrs and departed at 06:12 hrs. After departure of the train a person came running on the edge of the platform Hawrah end and trying to boardon the moving train. While boarding the train that person fell down and came between the gap of the platform and the train. He immediately stopped the train by apply vacuum and after getting down from the train, reached to the said injured. His leg was injured. He informed about the incident to the Station Master Firozabad. After some time RPF staff came and in a private vehicle took the injured for treatment. 5. That on information, Md. Iftikar Adil HC/RPF/FZD reached at the spot and found a person lying on platform no.2 injured, his leg was badly injured. His brother namely Dinesh Kumar was also there and he informed that his brother Manmohan s/o Ramsnehi were going to Farookhabad from Firozabad, his brother Manmohan while boarding the moving train fallen on the platform and got injured. They were four persons having ticket no. UCC 38169526. Thereafter, the injured
