Delhi High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Boarding a moving run-through train at a non-stopping station does not constitute an untoward incident.

M/S Associated Trading Company (Petrol Pump) vs Pramod Kumar & Ors.

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: September 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Boarding a moving run-through train at a non-stopping station does not constitute an untoward incident.. M/S Associated Trading Company (Petrol Pump) vs Pramod Kumar & Ors.. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellants’ case was that Vikas Kumar, a regular commuter holding a valid Monthly Season Ticket, fell from Train No. 14681 near Shivaji Bridge on 19 October 2019 and sustained fatal injuries

Source reference: p.1–2

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that he had attempted to board a moving train and that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident”

Source reference: p.2

The appellants appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

Source reference: p.1
02

Issues

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger

Source reference: p.2, para. 3

2. Whether his fall while attempting to board a moving train that was passing through Shivaji Bridge without a scheduled halt constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989

Source reference: p.2, paras. 3–5; p.3–4, paras. 7–11
03

Law Applied

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 concerns an accidental fall from a passenger train; whether an occurrence falls within that provision depends on the facts established in the particular case

Source reference: p.3, para. 8

A claimant’s status as a bona fide passenger does not, by itself, make every resulting occurrence an “untoward incident”

Source reference: p.3, para. 7; p.4, para. 11

The Court relied on *Gyan Prakash @ Bhushan & Anr. v Union of India*, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7191, for the proposition that a fall resulting from a conscious attempt to board a moving run-through train not scheduled to stop at the station may fall outside Section 123(c)(2)

Source reference: p.4, para. 10

The Court also considered *Union of India v Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar*, (2008) 9 SCC 527, cited by the appellants

Source reference: p.2, para. 4
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because the DRM Report acknowledged the validity of his season ticket, but held that this did not resolve whether the occurrence was an “untoward incident”

Source reference: p.3, para. 7

The eyewitness account was that the deceased and his companion tried to board Train No. 14681 as it passed the station; one boarded, while the deceased fell between the train and platform

Source reference: p.3, para. 8

The train was a run-through train not scheduled to halt at Shivaji Bridge

Source reference: p.3–4, paras. 9–10

Applying *Gyan Prakash*, the Court distinguished an accidental fall during a normal railway journey from a fall resulting from an attempt to board a moving train that was not scheduled to stop

Source reference: p.4, paras. 10–12
05

Holding

The Court held that the occurrence proved on the record did not fall within the statutory description of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), and found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision

The appeal was dismissed

Source reference: p.5, para. 14
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19871

Railways Act, 19891

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S Associated Trading Company (Petrol Pump)vsPramod Kumar & Ors.

Delhi High Court · September 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment