Accidental fall while boarding a train constitutes an untoward incident attracting no-fault railway liability.

On 10 December 2015, the appellant, while attempting to board Train No. 14114 (Link Express) at Moradabad Railway Station to travel to Chandausi, allegedly fell when the train suddenly started with a jerk and suffered serious injuries, including traumatic amputation of his left forearm.

He possessed a valid Monthly Season Ticket, which was recovered at the spot; the Railway Claims Tribunal consequently held him to be a bona fide passenger.

The Tribunal nevertheless dismissed his claim application on the ground that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The appellant challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Before the High Court, the appellant relied on his testimony and submitted that the Railway had not led oral evidence in rebuttal.

The Railway relied on the Station Master’s diary and other contemporaneous records, including a discharge summary stating that the appellant fell while crossing the railway track and was hit by an engine.

Whether the injuries sustained by the appellant while allegedly boarding a moving passenger train constituted an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the Railway established, through cogent evidence, circumstances sufficient to exclude its statutory strict/no-fault liability under Section 124-A?

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim application was sustainable in light of the appellant’s unrebutted testimony and the conflicting documentary records?

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals from Tribunal orders, and Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

An accidental falling of a bona fide passenger from a train while boarding or alighting constitutes an “untoward incident,” attracting the Railway Administration’s strict/no-fault liability, subject to the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A.

Relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, and Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, the Court held that alleged negligence by the passenger does not, by itself, defeat the claim.

The Court also relied on Rina Devi for the proposition that accidental falling while boarding or alighting is an untoward incident, and on Mohd. Ubaid v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3239, which reiterated that the Railway must establish a statutory exception by cogent evidence before strict liability can be avoided.

The High Court treated the appellant’s status as a bona fide passenger as settled because the Tribunal had so found on the basis of the recovered valid season ticket, and the Railway had not challenged that finding.

The appellant consistently stated that he fell because the train suddenly moved with a jerk while he was boarding, and his testimony as AW-1 remained unrebutted since the Railway did not examine any witness in opposition.

The Tribunal’s reliance on the Station Master’s entry—that the appellant was brought to the Station Master’s room at 18:50 hours, the recorded departure time of the train—was held to be inferential, as the record did not establish either the precise time of the fall or the time taken to bring him to the room.

Similarly, the discharge summary’s reference to the appellant falling while crossing the track and being hit by an engine was not adequately proved, as the person responsible for making or supplying that information was neither identified nor examined.

Applying the strict/no-fault liability principle, the Court held that the Railway had not proved any statutory exception under Section 124-A and that the evidence supported classification of the occurrence as an untoward incident.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s judgment dated 8 November 2019 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law.

The concerned authorities were directed to disburse the compensation within two months of receiving the order, and the matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 9 September 2026.