An accidental fall qualifies as an untoward incident only when boarding or deboarding is established.

On 11.04.2019, the appellant purchased a railway ticket for travelling from Kampil Road to Kasganj by Train No. 55331. She claimed that, after boarding the train, she was standing near its door because of heavy rush and fell between the train and the platform when the train jerked, suffering serious injuries, including amputation of her left arm and fractures.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed her claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. In appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant relied on her journey ticket and a GRP entry recording that a woman had fallen at Platform No. 1.

The Union of India relied on the Loco Pilot’s notebook, railway records, and evidence that the appellant had jumped in front of the train while it was entering the platform, before the train’s departure.

The train had arrived at Kampil Road at 05:52 hours, the incident was recorded at 06:07 hours, and the train departed at 06:10 hours.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a train, including in the course of boarding or de-boarding, may constitute an “untoward incident”; however, the foundational fact that the claimant had boarded or was de-boarding the train must first be established.

Section 124-A creates statutory liability for compensation arising from an untoward incident, subject to the statutory scheme.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, and Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, for the principle that an accidental fall while boarding or de-boarding may fall within Section 123(c), while recognising that the principle applies only where boarding or de-boarding is proved.

Although the journey ticket established the appellant’s intended journey, it did not by itself prove that she had boarded Train No. 55331 or that her injuries resulted from an untoward incident.

The Loco Pilot testified that the appellant had jumped in front of the engine while the train was entering Platform No. 1, and his evidence was supported by the original notebook, the Station Superintendent’s testimony, contemporaneous station records, and the Guard’s memo recording that a woman had jumped in front of the train.

The Court rejected the challenge to the notebook based on the positioning of the entry and the use of different pens, since the Loco Pilot had satisfactorily explained those circumstances.

The timing was decisive: the incident occurred at 06:07 hours, after the train’s arrival at 05:52 hours but before its departure at 06:10 hours. This contradicted the appellant’s case that she had boarded the moving train and subsequently fallen from it.

Consequently, the principle recognised in Rina Devi and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar could not assist her because the necessary fact of boarding or de-boarding had not been established.

Since the occurrence was not established as an untoward incident, the statutory liability under Section 124-A did not arise.

Finding no merit in the appeal or reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed FAO 297/2022 and disposed of the appeal.