Setting aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had rejected compensation claim of a woman who lost her left leg after falling from a moving train, the Delhi High Court has come to the aid of the victim ruling that an accidental fall while boarding or deboarding a train constitutes an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, and cannot automatically be classified as a self-inflicted injury.
The High Court held that the woman was entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Act.
ALSO READ : Bomb Threat Emails Target Courts In Maharashtra's Thane, Hingoli; Cybercrime Probe Launched
The court sent the case back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to determine the compensation due to Reshma and directed that the amount be paid within two months of receiving its order.
-
Indian Markets Turning Corner After Two Tough Years, Says Sandeep Tandon -
NDTV Profit Ignite 2026: Experts See Opportunity In Equities, Stay Bullish For Long-Term -
Buy Right, Sit Tight Does Not Work for Individual Stocks, Says Dinshaw Irani -
'Worst Is Behind': Quant MF Sees Market Bottom, Flags 'Extreme Euphoria' In Midcaps -
India's Mutual Fund Industry Could Become A $1 Trillion Opportunity, Say Fund Managers -
'Foreign Investors Are Baraatis': Raamdeo Agrawal's Take On LTCG Tax -
Stay Invested Through Market Cycles: Raamdeo Agrawal at NDTV Profit Ignite -
Ramesh Damani Remains Bullish On India For Next 20-30 Years, Sees Bargains Amid Market Weakness -
CAS Came After A Long Consultation Process: SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey AT NDTV PROFIT IGNITE -
Aim To Cut FPI Onboarding Time From Mth To Five Days: SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey AT NDTV PROFI
Reshma was travelling on the Kashipur-Moradabad Passenger Train from Kashipur to Pipalsana on December 5, 2015, when the accident occurred.
She had a valid journey ticket and was attempting to alight at Pipalsana railway station when she accidentally fell from the train. The fall left her with grievous injuries, including the amputation of her left leg below the knee. A disability certificate subsequently assessed her permanent disability at 55%.
Although the Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that Reshma was a bona fide passenger, it dismissed her compensation claim, reasoning that the injuries did not arise from an “untoward incident”.
The Tribunal treated her attempt to get off a moving train as a self-inflicted injury, thereby denying her compensation. Her subsequent review petition was also rejected. Challenging the decision, Reshma approached the Delhi High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
What The High Court Said
A key piece of evidence that weighed in Reshma's favour was the station diary entry recorded on the day of the accident. The official record noted that a woman passenger had fallen from Train No. 55312 shortly after its departure from Pipalsana and was subsequently taken to hospital.
The High Court observed that the entry, made in the ordinary course of official duty and close to the time of the incident, corroborated Reshma's consistent account of the accident. It also rejected the Tribunal's reliance on statements by the train's Loco Pilot and Guard, who had said that the incident had not come to their notice.
Such statements amounted to negative evidence and could not outweigh the contemporaneous station record acknowledging the fall, the court said.
ALSO READ : Can Tamil Be Used in Madras High Court? Advocates' Association Challenges 1965 Cabinet Decision
The court further held that merely attempting to deboard a moving train did not make the resulting injury self-inflicted.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in *Union of India vs Rina Devi* (2019), it reiterated that injuries sustained in an accidental fall while boarding or alighting from a train fall within the definition of an untoward incident.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in ‘Jameela vs Union of India' (2010) and *Union of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar* (2008), which recognise the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
Under this provision, compensation is payable once an untoward incident is established, irrespective of fault, unless one of the specific statutory exceptions applies.
598-Day Delay Also Condoned
Before examining the merits of the appeal, the High Court also condoned a delay of 598 days in its filing.
Reshma had told the court that her economically disadvantaged circumstances and lack of financial resources prevented her from securing timely legal assistance after the Tribunal's decision.
Citing its 2017 ruling in Mohsina vs Union of India, where an 804-day delay had been accepted on similar grounds, the High Court found merit in Reshma's explanation and allowed her appeal to proceed.
The court overturned the Railway Claims Tribunal's earlier ruling and sent the case back for a fresh assessment of compensation. It directed the Tribunal to quantify the amount due and ensure payment within two months of receiving the judgment.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.