Injuries caused by overcrowded trains and passenger instability constitute an "untoward incident," not a self-inflicted injury.

On June 2, 2018, the claimant Nirbhaysingh was traveling from Ahmedabad to Delhi on the Ashram Express with valid tickets.

Due to heavy rush in the general compartment, he stood near the door; a sudden jerk caused his left leg to protrude and collide with an electric pole near the track.

The injury resulted in the amputation of all toes on his left leg.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Ahmedabad Bench, awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- with 9% interest, characterizing the event as an "untoward incident".

The Union of India appealed, contending the injury was "self-inflicted" due to the claimant's own negligence in stretching his leg outside the coach.

1. Whether the injured was a bonafide passenger traveling with a valid ticket at the time of the incident?

2. Whether the injuries sustained by the claimant resulted from an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) or were "self-inflicted injuries" under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, defining "untoward incident" as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train.

Section 124-A, which establishes the principle of strict liability for the Railway Administration to pay compensation regardless of fault, unless the injury falls under specific exceptions like self-inflicted injury.

Precedent of Jameela v. Union of India (2010), which clarifies that negligence by a passenger does not constitute a "self-inflicted injury".

Pushpaben Jitendrakumar Shah v. Union of India (2004), which highlights the railway's duty to prevent overcrowding and ensure passenger safety.

The High Court observed that the Railway’s own witnesses (RPF and Station Superintendent) were not eye-witnesses and could not refute the claimant’s testimony.

During cross-examination, it was suggested and accepted that due to heavy rush and the push of fellow passengers, the claimant lost his balance, causing his leg to collide with the pole.

The court rejected the Railway's "self-inflicted injury" defense, reasoning that "fall" should be interpreted liberally to include instability caused by jerks or overcrowding.

Following the "strict liability" doctrine, the court held that since there was no malicious intent or mens rea on the part of the passenger, any contributory negligence in standing near the door does not absolve the Railway of its statutory liability.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of Rs. 2,40,000/- plus 9% interest, directing the RCT to disburse the compensation amount and accrued interest to the claimant immediately.