RAMRAO AMRUT PAWARversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER

2026:BHC-AUG:38656


                                                   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
                                          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//