Re-boarding a Moving Train After Alighting on the Wrong Side Constitutes an "Untoward Incident" Under Section 123(c).

On August 27, 2011, the deceased was traveling with his family from Pune to Tandur via the Hyderabad Express on a valid reserved ticket.

When the train reached Chittapur Railway Station, the deceased deboarded on the non-platform side to attend to nature's call.

As the train began to move, he attempted to re-board, lost his balance, and fell under the wheels, resulting in fatal injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissed the claim on April 30, 2018, ruling that while the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the incident did not qualify as an "untoward incident" due to the nature of the fall.

The appellants challenged this rejection before the High Court.

Whether the act of falling while re-boarding a moving train from the wrong side of the platform constitutes an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an "untoward incident" as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

The Court relied on the principle that there is a distinction between "negligence" and "criminal neglect" or self-inflicted injury, noting that welfare legislation should be interpreted in favor of claimants.

The court followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in *Sudhir Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India* (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2137), which allowed claims in near-identical factual circumstances.

The Court reasoned that the essential fact was the "accidental falling" of a passenger during the process of re-boarding a moving train.

Although the respondent argued the deceased was negligent by deboarding on the wrong side, the Court clarified that the accident did not occur while he was on the tracks attending to nature's call, but specifically while he was attempting to re-board the train.

The Court noted that the police investigation and the Taluka Executive Magistrate's diary both classified the death as an "accidental fall" due to loss of balance.

Since the Railways did not plead or prove "suicide" or "self-inflicted injury," the act of falling while trying to board a moving train—even if involving a degree of negligence—remains within the statutory ambit of an "untoward incident".

The Court directed the respondent to pay compensation of ₹4,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the accident, subject to a maximum cap of ₹8,00,000/-, to be distributed equally among the appellants.

The appeal was allowed.