Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 898

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Rajeev Jain, Judicial Member, Niva Singh, Technical Member
Kartik Ramesh Waghela – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II U) /MCC/412/2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. D. Mane
For the Respondents: P. Pal

Railway administration is strictly liable for compensation in untoward incidents involving accidental falls from trains, unless the injury is proven to be self-inflicted, criminal, or resulting from prohibited acts under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123 (c)(2) and 124-A - Untoward incident - Accidental fall from a moving train - Claim for compensation - Whether the victim is a bonafide passenger - Burden of proof.

(B) Evidence Act - Procedural law - Strict application not required before this Tribunal.

(C) Railway Accident and Untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990 - Quantum of compensation - Amputation injuries - Entitlement to Rs.8,00,000/- plus interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident. (Paras 11, 13, 17, 21)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, while traveling by local train from Andheri to Borivali, accidentally fell from the moving train resulting in serious injuries to both legs and head. He claimed to have boarded with a valid second-class ticket which was lost in the incident. The respondent railway administration contested the claim, alleging passenger negligence and lack of proof of a valid ticket.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the incident constituted an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2). Since the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of a bonafide passenger status and the incident did not fall under the exception clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A, the railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation.

Issues: Whether the victim was a bonafide passenger, whether the incident was an 'untoward incident', and the quantum of compensation payable.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere absence of a ticket does not negative the claim of being a bonafide passenger. Once the untoward incident is established, the railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation unless it proves the injury resulted from an excepted act. The onus of proof shifts to the railway once the claimant establishes the foundational facts.

Result: Claim application allowed; respondents directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- with 9% interest.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and procedural background of the claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. evidence presentation by parties and summary of witness statements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. application of section 124-a (strict liability) and definition of untoward incidents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. determination of compensation amount and disbursement order. (Para 21)

JUDGEMENT

1. The Claim Application has been filed by the Applicant, Mr. Kartik Ramesh Waghela, for compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 123 (c) (2) & Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, for injuries sustained by him in an alleged untoward incident, occurred on 06.02.2020.

The factual matrix of the matter in nut-shell is as below:

2. It is stated that Mr. Kartik Ramesh Waghela (hereafter referred as injured), resident of Mumbai. It is alleged that on 06.02.2020, he was travelling from Andheri to Borivali Railway Station by unknown local train. When the train was in between Kandivali and Borivali Railway station, due to sudden push from the other passengers, he accidentally fell down from the train near Km no. 31/15. It is further stated that the injured was travelling as a bonafide passenger, on the strength of a valid Second Class ticket Ex. Andheri to Borivali and the same was lost in the untoward incident.

3. In response to notice– Railway Authority appeared and opposed the claim application. The Respondent filed written statement and also produced on record the DRM reports, accompanied with other relevant police papers marked as “R-1”. It has been alleged that on 06.02.2020 at 04:45 hrs on receiving information about TP of an unknown person aged about 22 years, on DN through line at Km. No. 31/15, between Kandivali and Borivali Railway Station. SM/KILE, GRP/BVI, RPF/BVI attended the spot where a person was found injured with both legs cut. After giving first aid, SM/KILE on giving written memos took him to Shatabdi Hospital Kandivali for further treatment. On duty doctor treated him and referred the injured to Cooper Hospital as operation theatre was not available. GRP/BVI in its document has shown an unknown person of about 22 years of age, found in injured condition at K.M. No. 31/15, between Kandivali and Borivali Railway Station. In his statement, the injured person has stated that on 06.02.2020 while travelling in a local train from Andheri to Borivali in the morning, while standing at the door of the train to go to his home, he suddenly lost his balance between Kandivali and Borivali railway station and fell down from the train, suffering serious injuries to both his legs and head. Upon reviewing the documents obtained, it appears that SM/KILE, in his documents, has shown that he was found injured in front of the down line at K.M. no. 31/15 between the Kandivali and Borivali railway station. GRP/BVI, in its documents, has shown that he was found injured at K.M. no. 31/15 between Kadivali and Borivali railway station. In his statement, the injured person stated that while traveling on the door of a local train from Andheri to Borivali, he suddenly lost his balance and fell from the train between the Kadivali and Borivali railway station, suffering serious injuries to both legs and head. Traveling on the footboard of a railway train is a punishable offense under Section 156 of the Railway Act. The incident occurred due to the injured person's own negligence and non compliance with railway rules. It would not be fair to hold the railway administration responsible for this incident.

4. In view of pleading of both parties, and relevant documents produced on record, this Tribunal framed the following issues on 10.07.2021, for just and proper adjudication of Claim Application on merit within ambit of law.

1. Whether the Applicant was a bonafide passenger of the alleged train on the relevant day with valid journey ticket?

2. Whether the Applicant proves that on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 898

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAIRajeev Jain, Judicial Member, Niva Singh, Technical MemberKartik Ramesh Waghela – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA (II U) /MCC/412/2020

Railway administration is strictly liable for compensation in untoward incidents involving accidental falls from trains, unless the injury is proven to be self-inflicted, criminal, or resulting from prohibited acts under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Rajeev Jain, Judicial Member, Niva Singh, Technical Member
Kartik Ramesh Waghela – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA (II U) /MCC/412/2020