Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing judgment dated 27-3-2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal (‘RCT’), Principal Bench, Delhi, whereby his claim for compensation for the injury sustained in the railway accident was dismissed, Dharmesh Sharma, J., stated that in light of the divergent theories propounded by the respondent, none of which was credible, it was the victim’s testimony that should get precedence. It was clearly a case of the appellant sustaining injuries in an ‘untoward incident’.
Thus, the Court allowed the present appeal and stated that the appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 27-6-2015 till its realization, which be paid by the Railways.
Background
On 27-6-2015, the appellant was travelling in an Electric Multiple Unit (‘EMU’) train from Faridabad to Delhi on a valid Multiple Season Ticket (‘MST’). The appellant claimed that he was standing near the gate of the general compartment which was overcrowded and suddenly there was a heavy jerk due to which, he lost his balance and fell out of the moving train and sustained grievous injuries that resulted in amputation of his left leg and other bodily injuries, for which he sought compensation from the respondent (‘Railways’).
The Railways contested the claim petition primarily on the ground that the injuries were suffered by the claimant due to his own negligence as he was trying to board a super-fast train and lost balance in the process.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
After careful perusal of the material record, the Court stated that the impugned judgment cum award passed by the RCT, could not be sustained in law. The Court stated that the at the outset, the findings recorded by RCT, that the appellant was trying to board the Bhopal Express train was purely based on surmise and conjectures, and based on no evidence. There was no material on the record to suggest that the appellant was trying to board or deboard the said Bhopal Express train. The appellant’s testimony was categorical that he had boarded an EMU train and fell due to commotion or sudden jerk after loosing his balance and sustained injuries.
The Court observed that in the DRM Report, it was stated that on 27-6-2015, some passengers had informed the Station Master, Faridabad Railway Station that one person had fallen while deboarding the Bhopal Express Train. However, during the course of inquiry, the appellant claimed that he came to board EMU train. The EMU train passed through Faridabad at about 7:46 am. Meanwhile, at around 7:59 am, the Bhopal Express was passing through the Faridabad Railway Station, so it was assumed that the appellant had fallen from the said train, and sustained injuries due to his own negligence. Therefore, the Railways were not liable to compensate him.
However, the Court stated that it had no hesitation in holding that the reasons given by the RCT in rejecting the claim were absolutely perverse. The plea that the injuries were suffered by the appellant due to his own criminal negligence was also not fathomable in law. The Court stated that in light of the divergent theories propounded by the respondent, none of which was credible, it was the victim’s testimony that should get precedence. It was clearly a case of the appellant sustaining injuries in an ‘untoward incident’.
Further, the Court stated that it was a matter of record, that the appellant had the MST and he used to commute on a daily basis on the same route. Thus, the Court allowed the present appeal and stated that the appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 27-6-2015 till its realization, which be paid by the Railways.
[Varun Jindal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2863, decided on 1-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: D. Sabharwal and Shiv Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Jatinder Kaur, SPC.
