The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a train did not have a scheduled stoppage at a particular station, it cannot automatically be presumed that a passenger attempted to get off a moving train, so as to deny compensation under the Railways Act.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the observation while setting aside an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had rejected the compensation claim arising from the death of one Riyasat Ali in a train accident in 2017.

The appeal was filed by the widow and family members of the deceased against the Tribunal's February 28, 2022 judgment, which had held that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Appellants claimed that Ali was travelling from Rampur to Lucknow on the Ganga-Sutlej Express on September 30, 2017, when he accidentally fell from the train near Malihabad railway station due to a sudden jerk, resulting in his death.

Railways argued that the train did not have a scheduled stoppage at Malihabad railway station and, therefore, the deceased must have attempted to alight from a moving train.

The Court observed, “Merely because a train did not have a scheduled stoppage at a particular station, it cannot automatically be inferred that the deceased attempted to alight from the moving train or that the occurrence falls outside the scope of Section 123(c) of the Act.”

It noted that apart from relying on the absence of a scheduled halt, the Railways had failed to produce any evidence to establish that the deceased had attempted to get down from the moving train.

Referring to earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that mere absence of a scheduled halt could not justify an inference that the victim had voluntarily attempted to alight from the moving train.

As such, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the Tribunal to assess the compensation within two months.

Appearance: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Advocate for Appellants; Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Mr. Ankit Khatri and Mr. Ojas Pandey, Advocates for Respondent

Case Title: Smt. Sahana & Ors. v. Union of India

Case no.: FAO 287/2022

Click here to read order