Delhi High Court Orders Railways To Pay Compensation For Death Of Man Who Fell From Train After Boarding From Wrong Side
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Railway Claims Tribunal to grant compensation to the heirs of a man who passed away after falling from his train.While doing so, Justice Manoj Jain observed that it “really does not matter” that the deceased had boarded the train from the wrong side, when it was proved that he had successfully boarded the train and had fallen thereafter.The bench...
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Railway Claims Tribunal to grant compensation to the heirs of a man who passed away after falling from his train.
While doing so, Justice Manoj Jain observed that it “really does not matter” that the deceased had boarded the train from the wrong side, when it was proved that he had successfully boarded the train and had fallen thereafter.
The bench thus directed the Railway Claims Tribunal to award compensation for death, as prevalent at the relevant time as per the prescribed Schedule attached with Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, to the rightful claimants within eight weeks.
As per Petitioners, the deceased boarded Amrapali Express from New Delhi to go to Siwan Junction but he deboarded the train at Khurja Junction to fetch water, since there was no adequate facility of water in the train compartment. Thereafter, he boarded the same train again but due to the pull and push of the other passengers, he accidentally fell down from the moving train and succumbed to the injuries.
Railways on the other hand denied liability, stating that the deceased was attempting to cross the railway line at Khurja and was hit by another train, showing sole negligence of the deceased.
The Tribunal had sided with the Railways, holding that the deceased himself was responsible. It had held that if the deceased was to fetch water, he should have de-boarded from the side of the platform and there was no justifiable reason for him to have de-boarded from the other side where the railway line was situated.
Before the High Court, the Petitioners disputed the allegation that the deceased was hit by another train. They argued that though from the wrong side of the compartment, the deceased was able to board the train and he had fallen on account of the rush inside.
The High Court took into account the testimony of one Naseem, who was also travelling in the same train, and had supported the claimants. He nowhere stated that the deceased was hit by some other train.
The Court also looked into the testimony of the loco-pilot, from whose train the deceased was allegedly hit, and found that the person had fallen on the side “which rather supports the version of the appellants which is to the effect that when after fetching water, the deceased has re-boarded, he accidentally fell down”.
That being so, the Court held,
“The untoward incident happened when the deceased had re-boarded Amrapali Express, in which he was already travelling. Of course, he seems to have reboarded from the wrong side but it really does not matter much as fact remains that he was able to board again.”
Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Avnish Singh, SPC with Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, GP.
Case title: Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India
Case no.: FAO 246/2024