1 909-fa-3961-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3961 OF 2023 Ramrao Amrut Pawar VERSUS The Union Of India Through The General Manager ... Advocate for Appellant : Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Nitin Salunke ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2026 P.C.: 1. Present appeal is filed in order to challenge judgment and order dated 24.09.2004 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Application No.55/OA11/RCT/NGP/2003. 2. The appellant has filed present appeal challenging the said award being aggrieved by denial of injury claim by learned Tribunal. It is case of the appellant that on 09.06.2002, while traveling from Train No.542, when he got down to fetch drinking water, he met with an accident while trying to board the train as a consequence of which, his left leg is amputated below the knee joint. The claim petition is rejected by learned Tribunal on the ground that the incident does not amount to “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, since the appellant was trying to board a moving train. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance on 2026:BHC-AUG:38656 2 909-fa-3961-2023.odt judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 to contend that the accident that occurs while a passenger attempts to board or de-board the train, is covered within the definition of “untoward incident” and in such case, the claim for compensation is maintainable. Learned advocate contends that the negligence as contemplated under the Act is criminal negligence. Learned advocate contends that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that injury is self inflicted injury. 4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent supports the judgment and award. He contends that it is the case of appellant that while he was trying to board the train, the train was set in motion. He contends that admittedly, the appellant was trying to board the train which was already set in motion and, therefore, he is solely responsible for the act. 5. The following point arise for my consideration : (i) Whether the injury suffered by the appellant is self inflicted injury or the injury in untoward incident? 6. Learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant solely on the ground that he was trying to board a moving train. It is not in dispute that the appellant was traveling by the said train. The appellant got down on a station to fetch drinking water. He tried to board the train which was set in motion. It appears that while trying to 3 909-fa-3961-2023.odt board the train, he slipped from the board and his left leg was injured and is amputated on account of injury. The incident that has occurred is not in dispute. The dispute is only with respect as to whether the injury is a self inflicted injury or not. 7. It must be stated that the claim for payment of compensation under the Railways Act is based on no fault liability. The deceased met with an accident while trying to board a moving train. The accident has occurred on the platform. It is not the case of railway establishment that the train was moving with such a speed that no prudent person would venture to attempt to board the train at such a speed. Rather, the fact that the accident occurred at the platform is indicative of the fact that the train just had started and was obviously moving in slow speed. In such a situation, where the train is just about started, the passenger who is likely to miss the train may try to board a moving train. That itself will not be a ground to hold that such an act is done with a view to inflict injury to oneself. The present situation is similar to one in the case of Rohitas Bandu Kumawat Vs. Union of India, First Appeal 1277 of 2018, decided by Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction on 24.03.2026, where a passenger wanted to get down at a station where the train did not stop and met with fatal injury. This Court held that the claimant was entitled to receive compensation. The observations in the case of Rina Devi (supra), that the railway 4 909-fa-3961-2023.odt claims are to be adjudicated on ‘no fault liability’ are also attracted in the facts of the present case. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the injury suffered by the appellant is self-inflicted injury. 8. As regards the compensation payable, the accident has occurred on 09.06.2002. At the relevant time, the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was payable for amputation of leg below the knee. The said amount is enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016, which have come into force with effect from 01.01.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) held that the compensation payable under Railways Act will be in accordance with the rates prescribed as per the rules prevailing as on the date of accident, along with interest or compensation payable in accordance with the rules as prevailing on the date of decision by the Claims Tribunal, whichever is higher. The contention of learned advocate for the appellant that the compensation should be paid in accordance with the amended Rules of the year 2016 cannot be accepted, since learned Tribunal has passed the award on 24.09.2004 and the amended Rules have come into force with effect from 01.01.2017. The compensation will therefore have to be awarded in accordance with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents 5 909-fa-3961-2023.odt (Compensation) Rules, 1990, with appropriate interest. As per 1990 Rules, the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is payable to the appellant for the said injury. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interest at the rate at which the same is payable in motor accident cases must be awarded to the accident claims under the Railways Act. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 09.06.2002, till realization of the said amount. 9. In result, the judgment and award dated 24.09.2004 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Application No.55/OA11/RCT/NGP/2003 is quashed and set aside and said claim application is allowed. 10. The respondent is directed to pay amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7 % p.a. from 09.06.2002, till realization of the said amount. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//