Person Entitled To Compensation Who Suffers Injuries Or Death Anywhere Within Precincts Of Railway Station: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has observed that if a person is in the waiting hall, clock room, reservation or booking office, or on a platform or any other place within the precincts of a railway station and receives injuries or suffers death, the Railways would be liable to pay compensation.

In doing so the court emphasized that Section 123(c) (untoward incident) is a beneficial provision and the provision cannot be read in isolation. The court thus  granted relief to the kin of a deceased passenger, denied compensation by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased fell off his berth inside the train after a sudden jolt. 

Justice JC Doshi referred to Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) wherein it was held that object of the Act is for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made and should be given liberal and not the strict interpretation. The court said:

"Section 123(c) of the Act on its plain reading appears to be a beneficial piece of legislation. Section 123(c) in fact widened the benefit of untoward accident and even if, the railway is not involved in untoward accident, the railway has been held liable to pay compensation if a passenger travelling in the railway suffers injury or death. The benefit is found to be in inclusive definition. In view of section 123(c)(iii), even if a person is in waiting hall, clock room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or any other place within the precincts of a railway station and received injury or suffered death, the railway is liable to pay compensation".

The court further observed that Section 123(c)(2) Railways Act adds one more reason and ground permitting the Tribunal to grant compensation and the same cannot be read in isolation.

It said that Section 124, which defines the extent of liability, uses the phrase “any part of train carrying passenger” and this assumes significance wherein even if the passenger is travelling in the train he would be entitled to compensation if he received injury or death.

"this Court does not subscribe nonsensitive approach of the learned Tribunal and rather deprecate such non-sensitive approach carried out by the learned Tribunal to negate the claim of a person, who admittedly, was travelling in the train and fell due to jerk and jolt in the train and received death. A lot more can be observed, but the Court restrained itself from observing anything further," the court added.

The court was hearing an appeal moved by the kin of the deceased challenging a judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal which rejected claim of Rs.8 Lakh plus interest on the ground that the incident took place within the train compartment and does not fall within the "untoward incident" as defined in section 123(c) or section 124 of the Railways Act. The Tribunal held that Indian Railways was not liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased Sadanand Brahmane.

The deceased along with his friend were travelling in the Bhusawal – Surat Express on 31.1.2024, when due to a sudden jerk and jolt to the train, the deceased who was on the upper berth, fell on the floor of the train and died later in the hospital.

The Tribunal referred to section 123(c) of the Act and came to the conclusion that since the deceased fell down within the train and died, he is not entitled to get any compensation.

Quashing the Tribunal's order the court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication to be decided in 8 weeks. 

The appeal was allowed. 

Case title: BRAHMANE MANISHA SADANANDBHAI & ORS. v/s  UNION OF INDIA

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3793 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order