1 FA 1318.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2025 1. Smt. Bhumeshwari wd/o Chhaganlal Rahangdale, Aged about 65 years, Occupation-Housewife, R/o. 1145, Shitla Mandir, Pandri Tarai Pandri Bindrawangarah, Raipur (C.G.) - 492 004. 2. Sanjay Pawar s/o Chaganlal Pawar, Age 42 years, Occupation-Private Job. R/o. Near Pandri Talab, Durga Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) - 492 001. .. Appellants ..Versus.. Union of India, Through The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bialspur-C.G. .. Respondent ……………. Mr. R.G. Bagul, Advocate for Appellants. Ms. N.G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent. …………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 10.09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. In the present matter, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the appellants by recording the findings that the act of the deceased of de-boarding from the train when 2026:BHC-NAG:12226 2 FA 1318.25 train has taken a small halt at Darekasa Railway Station and not boarded in the train within time, amounts to a self inflicted injury and thereby rejected the claim petition. The appellants therefore approached before this court to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned learned Railway Claims Tribunal in the matter. 2. The submission of the present appellants is that deceased Chhaganlal was travelling from Dhanoli to Raipur by Train No.68724 Gondia-Raipur Passenger by purchasing a valid railway journey ticket. At Dhanoli Railway Station, he met with his relative namely, Nitin s/o Bhuran Rahangdale, who was also travelling in the same train from Gondia to Raipur. As the train reached at Darekasa Railway Station, the deceased and his relative got down from the train for having snacks and while boarding in the train, the relative of the deceased namely, Nitin Rahangdale could manage to enter in the train first, but deceased left behind and could not manage to enter into the coach and in untoward accident, loss his life. In the said accident, the leg of the deceased got stuck in the foot-board and as the train started to move, he lost his balance, he came under 3 FA 1318.25 the train. As a result, he succumbed to his injuries. 3. On the basis of this averment, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. The Respondent-Railway Department has contested the claim petition before the Tribunal. According to them, the act of the deceased to alight from the train when he was knowing that the halt at Darekasa Railway Station is of a short period, he should have vigilant and ought to have occupy his seat before train was started. It is their case that due to the fault of the deceased, as he could not manage himself to board in the railway within time, hence it is a case of self inflicted injury and therefor present appellants are not entitled for any compensation. 4. In the present matter, it would be relevant to consider the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and this fact is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the train was having a short halt at Darekasa Railway Station and the deceased has deboarded from the train to have a snacks along with his relatives. This fact is established on record by affidavit of Nitin Rahangadale. Therefore, from the affidavit which is filed on record, the appellant has discharged their burden. As 4 FA 1318.25 per the settled principles of law, once the appellant has discharged the burden, it is for the railway to demonstrate before the Tribunal that the case of the respondent falls under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989. 5. In the present matter, the submission of the railway is that it is a case of self inflicted injury and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the compensation. 6. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India .vs. Rina Devi, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362, particularly Para 16.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while in the case of suicide or attempt to commit suicide, intentional act is essential. 16.3. In Joseph PT (supra), the victim received injuries in the course of entering a train which started moving. Question was whether his claim that he had suffered injuries in an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) could be upheld or whether he was covered by proviso to Section 124A clause (b). The High Court held that while in the case of suicide or attempt to commit suicide, intentional act is essential. Since the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ is distinct from an attempted suicide, such intention is not required and even without such intention if a person acts negligently, injuries suffered in such 5 FA 1318.25 an accident will amount to ‘self inflicted injury’. Relevant observations are : Therefore, the two limbs of the Proviso should be construed to have two different objectives to be achieved. We can understand the meaning of the term "self-inflicted injury" not only from the sources provided by the dictionaries, but also from the context in which it is used in the statute. The term "self-inflicted injury" used in the statute can be deduced as one which a person suffers on account of one's own action, which is something more than a rash or negligent act. But it shall not be an intentional act of attempted suicide. While there may be cases where there is intention to inflict oneself with injury amounting to self-inflicted injury, which falls short of an attempt to commit suicide, there can also be cases where, irrespective of intention, a person may act with total recklessness, in that, he may throw all norms of caution to the wind and regardless to his age, circumstances, etc. act to his detriment. Facts of this case show that the appellant attempted to board a moving train from the off side unmindful of his age and fully aware of the positional disadvantageous and dangers of boarding a train from a level lower than the footboard of the train. It is common knowledge that the footboard and handrails at the doors of the compartment are designed to suit the convenience of the passengers for boarding from and alighting to the platform. And at the same time, when a person is trying to board the train from the non-platform side, he will be standing on the heap of rubbles kept beneath the track and that too at a lower level. Further more, he will have to stretch himself to catch the handrails and struggle to climb up through the footboard hanging beneath the bogie. The probability of danger is increased in arithmetic progression when the train is moving. Visualising all these 6 FA 1318.25 things in mind, it can only be held that the act of the appellant was the height of carelessness, imprudence and foolhardiness. It is indisputable that the purpose of Section 124A of the Act is to provide a speedy remedy to an injured passenger or to the dependants of a deceased passenger involved in an untoward incident. Section 124A of the Act provides for compensation to a passenger or his dependants who suffers injury or death, as the case may be, in an untoward incident even where the untoward incident is not the consequence of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. To this extent, it can be said to be a no-fault liability. Even though the provisions relating to payment of compensation in the Act can be said to be a piece of beneficial legislation, it cannot be stretched too much to reward a person who acts callously, unwisely or imprudently. There is no provision of law brought to our notice permitting the passengers to entrain from the non-platform side of the railway track. However, the counsel for the respondent did not show any provision of law prohibiting the same. The question whether an act by which a passenger sustains injury while boarding a train through the off side, is a self- inflicted injury or not depends on the facts of each case. Merely because a person suffered injury in the process of getting into the train through the off side, it may not be sufficient to term it as a self- inflicted injury, unless the facts and circumstances show that his act was totally imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the consequences. All the facts and circumstances established in this case would show that the act of the appellant was with full knowledge of the imminent possibility of dangering his life or limb and therefore, it squarely comes within the term "self-inflicted injury" defined in Section 124A Proviso (b) of the Act.” 7 FA 1318.25 7. In the present case, it is further necessary to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India .vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 has considered the term “accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this term should be given wide and purposive interpretation and not a literal interpretation. So also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as per Section 2(29) of the Act, the passenger defined means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. On the basis of this, has recorded the findings in Para 14 which reads as under : 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes 8 FA 1318.25 accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.” 8. It would be further relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jameela and others .vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705, wherein it is held that even if it is assumed that deceased fell down from a train and cause death due to his own negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be seen from Para 5 of the judgment which reads as under : “5. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that 9 FA 1318.25 the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act.” 9. In view of this legal position, I have perused the record and considered the submission of both the parties, here admittedly the respondent failed to point out that it is case of self inflicted injury. At the most, considering the fact of the case, it can be said that it was a negligence or carelessness of the deceased as he has not take due care while he was travelling in a train. Normally, when a person deboarded from the train on station, it is necessary for him to take care and should get his seat before the train starts. But in any case, this conduct of the deceased cannot be termed as a self inflicted injury. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by treating the said incident as a self inflected injury and subsequently reject claim petition of the claimants. 10. In the light of the above legal position and the fact of the present matter, I am of the considered opinion, that the appellant is entitled for the compensation. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10 FA 1318.25 Hence, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2023 passed in Claim Application No.OA (Iiu)/NGP/233/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6.5% with effect from 18.10.2019. (iv) The respondent is directed to deposit entire compensation amount directly to the accounts of the appellants in equal share within a period of three months. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 16/09/2026 10:06:14