Justice Manoj Jain, Delhi High Court
Death Caused While Re-Boarding Train From Wrong Side Qualifies As ‘Untoward Incident’ Under Railways Act: Delhi High Court Grants Compensation
|The deceased, a bonafide passenger, died after accidentally falling while re-boarding due to crowd push.
The Delhi High Court has allowed an appeal filed by the family and legal heirs of the deceased railway passenger. The death of the passenger after re-boarding a train and falling due to crowd push constitutes an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The Court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s order which had declined the compensation and remanded the case back to the Tribunal.
Justice Manoj Jain said, “The Railways Act is a beneficial statute. Its interpretation must favor the passenger’s dependents. A liberal and purposive reading is needed when the evidence supports the theory of accidental fall from a moving train, not hit by another train as alleged by the respondent.”
He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019), emphasizing that falling while boarding or deboarding a train constitutes an untoward incident, even if negligence is involved.
Factual Background
The deceased had boarded the train, from New Delhi to Siwan. When the train stopped at Khurja Junction, he stepped off to get water. While attempting to re-board the same train due to the heavy rush, he accidentally fell from the train and later died due to his injuries.
The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the family’s compensation plea, saying that the deceased was not injured due to a fall but was struck by another passing train (Train No. 02564) while crossing the railway tracks.
Reasoning
The Bench found the testimony of Mr. Naseem, an eyewitness and co-passenger, credible. He clearly stated that the deceased, had re-boarded the same train and accidentally fell due to push from fellow passengers.
On the contrary, the Railway’s own witness, the Loco-Pilot of Train No. 02564, made contradictory statements. Though in his chief examination he claimed that someone came in front of the train and collided, during cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see anyone crossing the tracks and stated that the deceased was not hit from the front but had fallen on the side. This contradiction, weakened the respondent’s stand.
The Court observed: “Even if the deceased re-boarded from the wrong side, it really does not matter much as the fact remains that he was able to board again. Respondent, in view of evidence appearing on record, has failed to show that the deceased was hit by another train.”
The bench applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Rina Devi, holding that contributory negligence of the victim does not bar compensation under the no-fault liability framework enshrined in Section 124-A of the Act.
Before concluding, the Court observed:
“The standard of proof in such matters is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof. The Railways Act, being a beneficial legislation, must be interpreted to serve its object, protection and relief for railway passengers and their families.”
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal. It directed the Tribunal to award compensation within eight weeks. The Tribunal was also instructed to determine the applicable rate and duration of interest, if any. The parties have been directed to appear before the Tribunal on August 4, 2025.
Cause Title : Rahnuma & Ors. vs Union of India, [2025:DHC:5335]
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocates Rajan Sood, Ashima Sood, and Megha Sood
Respondent: Advocates Avnish Singh, Kapil Dev Yadav