The Delhi High Court has set aside an earlier decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal and directed it to award compensation to the family of a man who died after falling from a moving train.
Justice Manoj Jain, presiding over the matter, held that it was immaterial whether the deceased had boarded the train from the wrong side, so long as it was proven that he had successfully boarded and subsequently fell from the train. The Court observed that the manner of boarding did not negate the fact that the incident qualified as an “untoward incident” under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
The High Court ordered the Tribunal to grant compensation in accordance with the prescribed Schedule of the 1990 Rules, directing the disbursal to the rightful claimants within eight weeks.
According to the petitioners, the deceased had boarded the Amrapali Express from New Delhi to travel to Siwan Junction. At Khurja Junction, he deboarded the train to fetch water due to the lack of adequate water facilities in his compartment. Upon attempting to reboard the same train, he fell due to a heavy passenger rush and succumbed to his injuries.
The Railways, however, denied any liability, arguing that the man had crossed the railway tracks at Khurja and was hit by another train, thereby attributing the incident to his own negligence.
The Railway Claims Tribunal had accepted the Railways' version and denied compensation, reasoning that the deceased ought to have alighted on the platform side and that his choice to do otherwise amounted to negligence.
Before the High Court, the petitioners disputed the allegation that the deceased was hit by a different train. They maintained that he had fallen while reboarding the same train from which he had earlier deboarded.
In support, the Court considered the testimony of a co-passenger, Naseem, who corroborated the petitioners’ version and made no mention of the deceased being struck by another train. Additionally, the testimony of the loco-pilot—whose train was allegedly involved in the incident—indicated that the fall had occurred on the side consistent with the claimants’ account.
Taking these facts into account, Justice Jain concluded:
“The untoward incident happened when the deceased had re-boarded Amrapali Express, in which he was already travelling. Of course, he seems to have reboarded from the wrong side but it really does not matter much, as the fact remains that he was able to board again.”
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, and Ms. Megha Sood
For the Respondents (Union of India): Mr. Avnish Singh, SPC, with Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, GP
Title: Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India
Case No.: FAO 246/2024
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy