Bombay High Court
SMT. CHANDIBAI LAXMAN RATHOD AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER,
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The accidental fall of a passenger while re‑boarding a moving train is an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, making the claim for compensation permissible.
Summary
The appellants, family members of a deceased passenger, challenged a Railway Claims Tribunal order that denied compensation on the ground that the death did not constitute an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989. The deceased had stepped down on the wrong side of the platform to attend nature’s call, and while attempting to re‑board the moving Hyderabad Express, lost balance, fell under the wheels and died. The High Court examined whether the accidental fall while re‑boarding a moving train falls within the definition of “untoward incident” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Relying on the factual record, police report, eye‑witness statements and the precedent of Sudhir Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India, the Court held that the incident is an accidental falling of a passenger and thus qualifies as an untoward incident. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the Railway was directed to pay Rs.4 lakhs compensation with interest, subject to a cap of Rs.8 lakhs.
Issues considered
- Whether the death of a passenger who fell while re‑boarding a moving train constitutes an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 for the purpose of claiming compensation.
Legislation cited
- Railways Act, 1989 — s. 123(c)
Subjects
- Railways Act
- untoward incident
- compensation
- accidental fall
- re‑boarding
- Railway Claims Tribunal
- negligence
- passenger rights
- death
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:10719
Sayyed 48-FA.1275.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1275 OF 2018
1. Chandibai Laxman Rathod,
2. Babu Laxman Rathod,
3. Narayan Laxman Rathod
All R/O Katraj Warje Malwadi,
Vithal Nagar, Super Market,
Pune – 411 058,
State – Maharashtra ...Appellants
(Org. Applicants)
Versus
Union of India,
Through the General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad – 500 003 ...Respondent
(Org. Respondent)
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellants.
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. Gautam Modanwal for the Respondent.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 4 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants challenging the
order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30 April
2018, whereby the application for compensation came to be rejected on
the ground that the incident which led to the death of the deceased was
not an “untoward incident”, which is a pre-condition for claiming
compensation.
2. Insofar as the issue of bona fide passenger is concerned, the
findings are in favour of the original claimants since the ticket was
found.
1 of 4
Sayyed 48-FA.1275.2018.doc
3. I have heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. On 27 August 2011, the deceased alongwith his wife and
children was travelling from Pune to Tandur by Hyderabad Express on a
reserved ticket. During the night time, the deceased when the train
reached Chittapur Railway Station got down on the other side of the
platform for attending nature’s call. In the meanwhile, the train started
moving and the deceased made an attempt to re-board the train at
which point of time, he lost his balance and fell down. His body came
under the wheels and he suffered severe injuries, whereby his upper
limbs were cut, head was separated and the left leg was also cut at
ankle resulting in his death.
5. Whether the above will constitute as an “untoward incident”
or not is an issue for my consideration. Section 123(c) of the Railways
Act, 1989 defines “untoward incident” and clause (2) states that an
“untoward incident” means the accidental falling of any passenger from
a train carrying passengers.
6. In the case diary prepared by the Taluka Executive Magistrate,
Chittapur it is recorded that the deceased accidentally fell down from
the train due to loss of balance while re-boarding the train. The
postmortem report also certifies death due to crush injury.
7. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the deceased while
trying to re-board the moving train fell down and came under the
wheels, which resulted in severe injuries leading to his death. Whether
the passenger who got down on the wrong side for attending to nature’s
call is not an issue before me. The death occurred while re-boarding the
train after attending the nature’s call. If while attending natures call, he
would have been hit by a train on the other side, then it could have
2 of 4
Sayyed 48-FA.1275.2018.doc
been argued that he was negligent in getting down on the wrong side to
attend the nature’s call but however that is not the case over here. The
incident occurred while re-boarding the train from the wrong side.
Admittedly, the deceased was travelling with his family members and
had a valid ticket. In my view, this would fall within the phrase
“accidental falling” of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
8. The statement of the eye witness at the Railway Station which
states that the deceased while attending to the nature’s call got down
on the wrong side of the station and while trying to re-board the train
fell down does not take the incident outside the purview of an
“untoward incident” as defined but it supports the case of the original
applicants-appellants. The accident occurred not while attending to
nature’s call from a train coming from the other side, but the accident
occurred while re-boarding the train in which the deceased was
travelling.
9. It is not the case of the Railways that it is the case of suicide.
Therefore, the nature of injury would not come in the way of the
applicants’ claiming the compensation. There is thin line between
negligence and taking undue care. The deceased should not have got
down on the wrong side for attending the nature’s call since he was
travelling in a reserved compartment, but for whatever reason he got
down, the accident occurred while re-boarding the train, when the train
started moving, and it is this aspect which has to be considered for
deciding the entitlement of the compensation.
10. The police report states that, on investigation, the deceased
accidentally fell due to loss of balance and died. In the said report, the
police have also stated that it was a case of accidental fall from the
train. The son of the deceased who was travelling with his father also
3 of 4
Sayyed 48-FA.1275.2018.doc
gave a statement that the incident occurred, when his father went to
attend to nature’s call and fell down from the train and died on the
spot. The respondent has not led any evidence of any witness in support
of their contention. In a welfare legislation like the present one where
the borderline is thin, and more particularly in the facts of the present
case, the issue should be considered in favour of the claimants for
getting the compensation.
11. I draw support for my above analysis from the decision of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sudhir Yadav & Ors. vs. Union
of India1 wherein on very identical and similar fact situation, the claim
was allowed. This decision squarely supports the case of the present
appellants.
12. In view of my above analysis, the impugned order to the
extent that it dismisses the application on the ground that the incident
does not fall within the meaning of the term “untoward incident” is
reversed.
13. The appellants-applicants to make an application to the
respondent for claiming the compensation by producing the present
order and the Tribunal’s order. The respondent to remit the
compensation amount of Rs.4 lakhs alongwith the interest at 6% per
annum from the date of accident, subject to a cap of Rs.8,00,000/-
within twelve weeks from such an application to the bank accounts of
the claimants. The claimants to give details of their bank accounts to
the authorities of the respondent. The respondent should remit the
amounts to the appellants equally.
14. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2137
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/03/2026 15:22:30 4 of 4
Checking your session…