Injury Sustained While De-Boarding At Station Where Train Does Not Halt Is Not 'Self-Inflicted Injury': Bombay High Court Orders Compensation

A passenger trying to de-board a train at a station where the train does not halt and sustains an injury, the said injury cannot be termed as a 'self-inflicted injury' but would constitute an 'untoward incident' qualifying such a passenger to seek compensation under section 124A of the Railways Act, held the Bombay High Court on March 24.

Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing a plea filed by a man, who challenged the order of a Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed his plea seeking compensation for sustaining injuries after falling from a moving Gauhati Express train. The tribunal, the judge noted, dismissed the plea on the ground that the petitioner was sitting on the door of the coach and then fell down sustaining injuries, which could not be 'untoward incident.' The petitioner on the other hand, contended that he fell because of rush in the train and that the train did not halt at Jalgaon station, where he wanted to de-board. 

"It is possible that he may be under a bonafide belief that all trains halt at Jalgaon because Jalgaon is an important place in Maharashtra. However, on realising that the train has not halted at Jalgaon, if a person attempts to de-board a moving train, it is but natural that some injury would be caused. In the instant case also, there was an injury on head and left leg," Justice Jain held. 

The judge said that the petitioner could have waited for the next railway station to de-board the moving train and added, "but at that point of time, a person loses his mental balance and in panic tries to de-board the moving train without there being any intention of 'self-inflicted injury.' No person in such a situation would do any act to impose upon him 'self-inflicted injury' and in some cases, it is also possible that he may go unscathed."

Justice Jain noted that on platform where local trains are run, there is a display board stating that the train will not halt at some of the railway stations and names of such railway stations are displayed.

"However, in long distance trains, such display board is not found on the platforms. Such long distance trains are also used by passengers to travel short distance from one small railway station to another. No announcements are made that the train will not halt at so and so railway stations. Therefore, in such circumstances, if a person boards a train and train does not have halt at the railway station where he wants to de-board, no fault can be attributed to such a passenger," Justice Jain held.

The judge concluded the order with a "Caution" for passengers, stating, "I may end with a caution that the passenger, if he boards a wrong train should not make any attempt to de-board the train at a railway station not having a halt and risk his life. It is advisable to wait till the train halts at the next railway station and pay necessary fine for travelling beyond the destination for which the ticket was purchased."

Justice Jain pointed out that usually at such instances, a human being may take steps to risk the life but it is at that point of time that test of mental balance is tested.

"This is required in the larger interest of the dependents of the passenger. The Railway authorities should introduce a public announcement system like that in Vande Bharat train, in all the trains to reduce such incidents," the judge opined. 

With these observations, the bench ordered compensation to the tune of Rs 80,000 along with interest, to the petitioner. 

Appearance:

Advocate Mohan Rao appeared for the Petitioner. 

Advocates TJ Pandian, Gautam Modanwal and Prasad Sawant represented the Railways. 

Case Title: Rohidas Band Kumavat vs Union Of India (First Appeal 1277 of 2018)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 145

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment