Strict Liability Prevails Over Pleas of Negligence in Claims for Compensation From Untoward Railway Incidents

On March 18, 2022, the claimant, a "bonafide passenger" holding a valid ticket, was traveling from Anand to Ramdevra via the Bandra Terminus-Jaisalmer SF Express.

Near Vatva Railway Station, the claimant fell from the running train due to a sudden jerk and jolt, resulting in his right hand being crushed below the elbow and multiple head injuries.

The Railway Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal") awarded Rs. 5,50,000/- with 9% interest.

The Union of India appealed, contending that the incident resulted from the claimant’s own negligence (standing near the door and performing "stunts"), thus falling outside the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

1. Whether the injured passenger met with an "untoward incident" due to a fall from a passenger-carrying running train as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the defense of "self-negligence" or "contributory negligence" by the passenger absolves the Railway Administration of its liability under Section 124-A of the Act.

The court applied Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which define "untoward incidents" and establish the principle of "strict liability" for the Railways.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008), which held that Section 124-A casts liability even if the victim is at fault.

Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018), which clarified that negligence does not bring a case under the "self-inflicted injury" exception unless there is intent.

Lata v. Union of India (2026) regarding the burden of proof and welfare nature of the Act.

The Court rejected the Appellant's contention of self-negligence based on the DRM report and witness testimony of a trackman. It noted that the Railway failed to cross-examine the claimant effectively on the "stunt" allegation, and the trackman had not reported such behavior immediately after the incident.

Legally, the Court emphasized that compensation under Section 124-A is based on "no-fault liability".

Citing Rina Devi, the Court reasoned that the concept of "self-inflicted injury" requires intentional harm, whereas falling from a train—even if due to standing near the door or negligence—is an "accidental fall" qualifying as an untoward incident.

The Court highlighted that the Railways Act is beneficial legislation, and a hyper-technical approach to deny relief to victims must be eschewed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Railway Administration was directed to disburse the remaining compensation amount with accrued interest to the claimant after due verification.