De-boarding a moving train constitutes an untoward incident and does not amount to "self-inflicted injury" under the Railways Act.

The appellant, Reshma, was traveling from Kashipur to Pipalsana on December 5, 2015, with a valid journey ticket.

While de-boarding the train at Pipalsana Railway Station, she fell and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in a below-knee amputation and 55% permanent disability.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) originally dismissed her claim on May 24, 2019.

Although the RCT found her to be a bona fide passenger, it concluded that de-boarding a moving train constituted a "self-inflicted injury" and thus did not qualify as an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act.

The appellant challenged this in the High Court after a delay of 598 days, citing economic hardship.

1. Whether the delay of 598 days in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the appellant’s economic condition.

2. Whether the injuries sustained by the appellant while de-boarding a moving train constitute an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which establish a regime of strict liability for "untoward incidents," including accidental falls from trains.

It relied on the precedent of Mohsina v. Union of India regarding the condonation of delay for economically weaker claimants.

The Court followed the Supreme Court’s rulings in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which clarified that death or injury during boarding or de-boarding fall within an "untoward incident" and are not "self-inflicted injuries".

Jameela v. Union of India and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar established that liability under Section 124-A is strict and exceptions must be construed narrowly.

The Court first condoned the delay, noting that the beneficial nature of the legislation warrants a lenient view for impoverished litigants.

On the merits, the Court found that the RCT erred by ignoring contemporaneous evidence, specifically a station diary entry made immediately after the accident which confirmed a lady passenger "fell from the train".

The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on the negative testimony of the Loco Pilot and Guard, noting such evidence cannot override official records of the fall.

Applying Rina Devi, the Court reasoned that the act of de-boarding a moving train does not ipso facto attract the "self-inflicted injury" exception; rather, it remains an accidental fall.

Since the appellant was a bona fide passenger and the fall was established, the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A applies regardless of whether the passenger was negligent.

The Court set aside the RCT’s judgment dated December 20, 2019, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess and disburse the compensation amount within two months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on May 15, 2026.