Accidental Fall From Upper Berth Inside Moving Train Constitutes Untoward Incident: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, Delhi High Court
While remitting a matter of compensation reassessment to the Railway Claims Tribunal, the Delhi High Court has held that an accidental fall of the deceased from the upper berth inside the moving train constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi, in a Claim Application.
The Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held, “Consequently, the “accidental fall of the deceased from the upper berth inside the moving train” constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, in proceeding solely on the basis of the medical cause of death to hold that no untoward incident had occurred, has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective.”
Advocate Rajan Sood represented the Petitioner while Central Govt Standing Counsel Bhagwan Swarup Shukla represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
One Sanjeev Kumar (deceased) was travelling from Etawah to Agra Cantt. along with his father, on the strength of a valid second-class journey ticket. During the course of the journey, the deceased, who was occupying the upper berth, fell from the berth due to a sudden jerk in the moving train and became unconscious. He was thereafter attended to by the railway doctor and was declared dead.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants on the ground that although the deceased was a bona fide passenger, his death was not the result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989, but was a natural death on account of “myocardial infarction”.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the Tribunal had already returned a categorical finding which had attained finality that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The deceased was travelling on a valid second-class journey ticket, which finding had neither been challenged nor disputed by the respondent.
Dealing with the issue of whether an accidental fall “within the train” can constitute an “untoward incident, the Bench referred to the judgment in Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway v. Triveni W/o Late Shri Ram (2014) , wherein it has been observed that falling of a passenger from a train is an untoward incident and there is no requirement of Section 123(c)(2) that the falling of the passenger from the train must be outside the train.
The Bench further stated that the factum of the deceased having fallen inside the train stood covered by the principle laid down in Triveni (supra). The Bench found that there was no documentary or medical evidence on record to establish that the deceased was suffering from any pre-existing cardiac ailment.
Holding that the accidental fall of the deceased from the upper berth inside the moving train constituted an untoward incident, the Bench allowed the appeal and ordered, “...and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order.”
Cause Title: Shyam Singh & Anr. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:7766)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Rajan Sood, Ashima Sood, Megha Sood
Respondent: Central Govt Standing Counsel Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, Advocate Saumya Srivastav