"No Compensation Without Proof Of Bona Fide Travel": Delhi HC Dismisses Claim Despite Amputation Of Both Hands After Train Accident

The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a railway accident compensation claim, holding that even the grievous injury of losing both hands cannot substitute proof of an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had denied compensation to the claimant who suffered amputation of both hands below the elbow following an alleged fall from a train.

According to the appellant, he had boarded the Malwa Express from Sonipat to Jhansi with a valid ticket and accidentally fell from the train due to heavy rush, resulting in severe injuries. He claimed that the ticket was lost during the incident and relied on Supreme Court precedent to argue that non-recovery of a ticket should not negate bona fide travel.

However, the High Court found serious inconsistencies in the appellant's version. While he claimed that the fall occurred near Sadar Bazar, the medical records (MLC) recorded the place of incident as Platform No. 10 of Old Delhi Railway Station, a route not even covered by the concerned train.

“The inconsistency between the alleged place of occurrence of the incident, and as recorded in the medical record, goes to the root of the matter and casts serious doubt on the appellant's version of bona fide travel,” it said.

The Court also noted a significant unexplained delay of nearly seven hours between the alleged time of the incident and the receipt of information by the police. Given the severity of the injuries, the Court found it improbable that the appellant could have remained unattended for such a long duration.

Given these circumstances, the Court held that foundational facts relating to the manner of occurrence remain unsubstantiated, and the claim cannot be brought within the fold of an “untoward incident”.

As such, the Court dismissed the appeal and declined to grant compensation.

Appearance: Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC for UOI with Mr. Mohit Gupta Sharma, Advocate

Case title: Tulsi Das v. UoI

Case no.: FAO 273/2018

Click here to read order