Mere negligence while boarding a train does not constitute self-inflicted injury under Section 124-A.

On 29 January 2018, Vijay Singh travelled from Delhi Cantt. to Bandikui by the Ala-Hazrat Express after purchasing a valid second-class superfast railway ticket.

At Palam Railway Station, amid heavy rush, he was allegedly pushed towards the off-side door when the train began moving, lost his balance, and fell onto the adjacent track.

A goods train coming from the opposite direction ran over him, resulting in the amputation of both legs above the knee. He was treated at AIIMS Trauma Centre.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed his compensation claim, holding that he was not a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident.”

The appellant challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger for the purposes of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the injuries sustained while the appellant was allegedly attempting to board the passenger train constituted an “untoward incident” or were excluded as “self-inflicted injury” under the proviso to Section 124-A.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim on the basis that the appellant had deliberately and recklessly exposed himself to danger by attempting to pass between the container flats of a goods train.

The Court applied Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes no-fault liability on the railway administration for death or injury caused by an “untoward incident,” subject to statutory exclusions including self-inflicted injury.

The statutory explanation to Section 124-A includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a passenger train and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides the appellate jurisdiction invoked by the appellant.

Relying principally on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that injuries sustained while boarding or de-boarding a train may constitute an untoward incident; mere negligence does not amount to a “self-inflicted injury,” which requires an intention to inflict the injury.

Even boarding from the off-side does not automatically attract the statutory exclusion; the facts must demonstrate conscious and deliberate exposure to danger.

The Court also referred to Lata v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350.

The valid railway ticket established the appellant’s foundational status as a bona fide passenger, and his subsequent presence on the track did not, by itself, negate that status or determine whether the occurrence was an untoward incident.

The evidence of AW-2 and AW-3 showed, at its highest, that the appellant was on the track and attempting to pass between the container flats of a goods train to board the passenger train; their distance from the occurrence did not establish any intention on his part to inflict injury.

The Tribunal improperly reconstructed the incident and inferred conscious and deliberate danger-taking without direct evidentiary support.

The contemporaneous AIIMS record describing the incident as a railway-track injury sustained while trying to board the train supported the appellant’s account, although it was not by itself conclusive.

Since the statutory scheme is beneficial and based on no-fault liability, the exclusion for self-inflicted injury had to be proved through facts demonstrating the requisite intention; mere negligence, imprudence, or an attempt to board from the off-side was insufficient.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 15 November 2018 was set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 4 November 2026.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.