Court Sets Aside Railway Claims Tribunal Order
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Indian Railways cannot reject a passenger compensation claim merely because a post-mortem report lists a medical condition as the cause of death when there is clear evidence that the passenger accidentally fell inside a moving train.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri set aside an earlier Railway Claims Tribunal order that had denied compensation to the family of Sanjeev Kumar, who died after falling from an upper berth in 2015. The High Court held that the fall constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.
Passenger Fell From Upper Berth After Sudden Jerk
Sanjeev Kumar was travelling with his father from Etawah to Agra Cantt on November 10, 2015, on a valid second-class ticket.
As the train approached Agra Cantt, Sanjeev, who was occupying the upper berth, reportedly fell after a sudden jerk while the train was moving. He became unconscious and was attended to by a railway doctor, who declared him dead.
His family subsequently approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
Tribunal Relied on Heart Attack Finding
The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the compensation claim in 2022.
It relied primarily on the post-mortem report, which recorded the cause of death as “shock as a result of myocardial infarction”, or heart attack.
The Tribunal therefore concluded that Sanjeev’s death was a natural death rather than an “untoward incident” covered by the Railways Act.
The family challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court.
High Court Says Fall Cannot Be Ignored
The High Court took a different view.
The court noted that railway records prepared around the time of the incident, including the Deputy Station Superintendent’s memo and panchnama, recorded that Sanjeev had fallen from his seat.
His father’s testimony also supported the account that Sanjeev fell from the upper berth because of a sudden jerk.
The court held that the post-mortem finding was relevant to the cause of death, but it could not by itself erase the established fact that the accidental fall had occurred.
No Evidence of Pre-Existing Heart Condition
The High Court also pointed out that there was no documentary or medical evidence showing that Sanjeev had a pre-existing cardiac ailment.
The fact that he was travelling to Agra for treatment of back pain did not establish that he had a heart condition or that a cardiac event had occurred before the fall.
The court therefore said the Tribunal had erred by relying solely on the medical cause of death without considering the other evidence.
Fall Inside Train Counts as an Untoward Incident
The judgment clarified an important aspect of railway compensation law.
Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, an accidental fall of a passenger from a train constitutes an “untoward incident.” The law does not require the passenger to have fallen outside the train.
The court also referred to the principle of strict or no-fault liability under Section 124-A, meaning compensation can arise from qualifying railway accidents without requiring the passenger’s family to prove negligence by the Railways.
Compensation Claim Sent Back
The High Court allowed the family’s appeal and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s decision.
The matter has now been sent back to the Tribunal to determine the compensation payable to the family in accordance with law. The authorities have also been directed to disburse the compensation within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.
Summary: The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accidental fall from an upper berth inside a moving train qualifies as an “untoward incident” under railway law. The court said a post-mortem finding of myocardial infarction could not, by itself, erase evidence of the accidental fall. The Railway Claims Tribunal’s decision denying compensation was set aside, and the case was sent back for determining compensation.
