Accidental falls from crowded trains constitute untoward incidents absent proof of self-inflicted injury.

The appellant, Rajinder Prasad, aged approximately 48 years, claimed that he purchased a computerised railway ticket for ₹169 from Siwan to Ambala Cantt. and travelled by Jan Sadharan Train No. 04601.

On 24 April 2013, near Jagadhari Railway Station, he was standing near the compartment door due to heavy passenger rush when his foot slipped and he fell from the train into the gap between the train and Platform No. 3.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed his claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s judgment under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger notwithstanding the non-production of the railway ticket?

Whether the appellant’s fall from Train No. 04601 constituted an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the injuries suffered by the appellant—amputation of both legs—were scheduled injuries warranting statutory compensation?

What amount of compensation and interest was payable to the appellant?

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes statutory liability on the Railway administration to pay compensation for death or injury resulting from an “untoward incident,” subject to the exceptions in its proviso, including suicide, attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, and certain other specified circumstances.

Section 123(c)(2) includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within the definition of an “untoward incident.”

Mere non-production of a ticket does not, by itself, disprove bona fide passenger status where the claimant gives a consistent account of purchasing the ticket and its loss is reasonably explicable; the evidentiary burden may shift to the Railways to rebut that account, as recognised in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.

The expression “accidental falling of a passenger” is to receive a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with the beneficial object of the legislation, as held in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ 1895.

Under Part II, Item (3) of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, double amputation through the leg or thigh, or comparable loss of both lower limbs, is a scheduled injury attracting compensation.

The Court held that the Tribunal had improperly treated the absence of the original ticket as conclusive proof that the appellant was ticketless.

The appellant had consistently stated, in his contemporaneous statement to the GRP, claim application, affidavit, and deposition, that he had purchased a ₹169 ticket from Siwan to Ambala Cantt. and that it was lost during the incident or subsequent medical treatment.

The Railways produced no evidence that he had been apprehended travelling without a ticket or that proceedings under Sections 55 or 137 of the Railways Act had been initiated against him.

The Court further found that the appellant’s accidental-fall account was supported by the Station Master’s memo, the medical and GRP material, and the fact that he was found injured in connection with the relevant train.

The Tribunal’s inference that he had attempted to de-board the train merely because Jagadhari was not a scheduled stoppage, or because he was a resident of Yamunanagar, was held to be conjectural.

In the absence of evidence of an intention to commit suicide or cause self-injury, the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A could not be invoked.

The medical record, the appellant’s statement, and his deposition established traumatic amputation of both legs, which fell within the scheduled injuries under the 1990 Rules.

It held that the appellant was a bona fide passenger, that he had accidentally fallen from Train No. 04601 near Platform No. 3 at Jagadhari on 24 April 2013, and that the occurrence constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

For the double-amputation injury, the appellant was held entitled to ₹4,20,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, or ₹8,00,000 under the enhanced schedule applicable as on the date of the award, whichever was higher.

The Union of India was directed to deposit or pay the applicable amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

In default, further interest at 12% per annum would apply until payment.