Non-eyewitness RPF testimony cannot establish that railway injuries were self-inflicted under Section 124-A.

The appellant was travelling from Manduadih to New Delhi by Train No. 12559 on 6 May 2019.

His journey ticket was recovered after the incident and verified as genuine by the Manduadih booking office, establishing him as a bona fide passenger.

While the train was passing through Platform No. 2 at Sahibabad Railway Station, the appellant fell from the train and suffered injuries resulting in the amputation of both hands.

He claimed that he had gone towards the toilet and was pushed by passengers who were de-boarding while the train was moving slowly.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed his compensation claim, holding that he had attempted to de-board from a running train and that his injuries were self-inflicted.

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

Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger entitled to invoke the compensation provisions under the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the appellant’s fall from the train constituted an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the appellant’s injuries were self-inflicted or otherwise fell within the statutory exceptions to the strict liability imposed under Section 124-A.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals against orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall of a bona fide passenger from a passenger train constitutes an “untoward incident” attracting statutory compensation, subject to the prescribed exceptions.

Relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, the Court held that Section 124-A embodies strict or no-fault liability and that the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train” must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, for assessing the claim on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

A claim can be excluded only where the evidence establishes that the injury resulted from an intentional or otherwise statutorily excluded act.

The appellant’s genuine journey ticket established that he was a bona fide passenger.

Although the RPF Constable’s statement formed the basis of the Tribunal’s finding, the Constable had not witnessed the fall; he had only heard shouting and subsequently found the appellant injured on the platform.

His evidence therefore did not directly establish that the appellant had attempted to de-board from the moving train.

The appellant’s statement during the DRM inquiry consistently attributed the fall to jostling and being pushed by passengers while the train was moving slowly.

The absence of a report to the Guard or chain-pulling did not disprove the occurrence, particularly since contemporaneous railway records confirmed that the appellant was found injured immediately after the train passed the platform.

Applying the strict-liability principle under Section 124-A, the Court held that the evidence did not establish an intentional act or otherwise justify treating the injuries as self-inflicted within the statutory exception.

The Tribunal’s finding that the injuries were self-inflicted and excluded from compensation under Section 124-A was unsupported by the evidence.

The impugned judgment dated 10 June 2022 was set aside, and 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 Court’s order.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.