Negligent conduct near a train doorway is not self-inflicted injury absent proof of intent to cause injury.

On 04.07.2024, Mushaid Hussain travelled from Chandigarh to Bareilly by Train No. 22356, along with his friend and co-passenger Mohd. Shan, on a genuine journey ticket issued for two adults.

The deceased allegedly fell from the running train near Chudiyala Railway Station, sustained fatal injuries, and died at the spot.

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that he was a bona fide passenger but dismissed the claim on the ground that the death did not result from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The appellant challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, contending that the railway record recorded a fall from the train, that there was no eyewitness to an intentional jump, and that the deceased’s alleged negligence could not be treated as a self-inflicted injury.

1. Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the respondent established that the deceased’s death fell within an exception to the Railway’s liability under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, particularly self-inflicted injury, suicide, or a criminal act.

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim on the basis that the deceased was “doing stunts” or had caused a self-inflicted injury.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 covers accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers, while Section 124-A imposes statutory liability for death or injury arising from an untoward incident, subject to the exceptions in its proviso, including suicide, self-inflicted injury, and a criminal act.

The burden was on the Railway to establish the applicability of any statutory exception.

In Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, the Supreme Court held that standing at the open door of a moving train may amount to negligence or rashness, but does not, without more, constitute a criminal act or establish the requisite intention for a self-inflicted injury.

The Court also applied the beneficial nature of the railway-compensation legislation, holding that a claim cannot be rejected on conjecture regarding the manner of the accident.

The Court gave primacy to the contemporaneous railway record, including the Station Master’s statement, which recorded that information had been received regarding the deceased having fallen from Train No. 22356.

Although co-passenger Mohd. Shan stated that the deceased had earlier been hanging near the doorway and that passengers had warned him, his evidence indicated that, after re-boarding at Saharanpur, the deceased was merely standing near the gate; Shan did not witness the fall and only heard a noise before being informed by other passengers that the deceased had fallen.

The Tribunal’s conclusion that the deceased was “doing stunts” was unsupported by direct eyewitness evidence and improperly converted possible negligence into proof of intention to cause self-injury.

The overcrowded condition of the general compartment further supported the possibility of an accidental fall.

The fact that the body was found between the tracks, and the railway form’s description of Shan as an eyewitness, could not overcome the contents of Shan’s actual statement.

Applying Jameela, the Court held that even negligent or rash conduct near an open train door did not establish a criminal act, suicide, or self-inflicted injury in the absence of evidence of mens rea or intention.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 23.01.2026 was accordingly set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and to direct disbursement by the concerned authorities within two months of receipt of the High Court’s order.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 25.09.2026; the appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.