The Delhi High Court ruled that a passenger’s accidental fall from an upper berth inside a moving train is an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act, even if the post-mortem cites a heart attack as the cause of death, setting aside a tribunal’s order.
The Delhi High Court has held that an accidental fall of a passenger from an upper berth inside a moving train constitutes an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, and cannot be brushed aside merely because the post-mortem report mentions myocardial infarction as the cause of death.
The Case Details
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed while allowing an appeal filed by Shyam Singh and another against the Railway Claims Tribunal’s order dismissing their compensation claim following the death of Sanjeev Kumar.
The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law. It further directed the authorities concerned to disburse the compensation within two months from receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order. The matter has been directed to be listed before the Tribunal on September 30, 2026.
The case arose from an incident dated November 10, 2015, when Sanjeev Kumar was travelling from Etawah to Agra Cantt with his father, Shyam Singh, in Train No. 64157 (Etawah-Agra Cantt Shuttle MEMU). He was travelling on a valid second-class ticket.
According to the record, while the train was approaching Agra Cantt Railway Station, Sanjeev, who was occupying the upper berth, fell from the berth following a sudden jerk while the train was moving. He became unconscious and was attended to by a railway doctor, who declared him dead. A post-mortem was subsequently conducted at District Hospital, Agra.
High Court’s Rationale
The Railway Claims Tribunal had dismissed the compensation claim, holding that although Sanjeev was a bona fide passenger, his death was not the result of an “untoward incident” but was a natural death caused by myocardial infarction.
The High Court noted that the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger was not in dispute. It found that he had been travelling on a valid ticket and that this finding of the Tribunal had attained finality. The central issue before the Court was therefore whether the fall inside the moving train amounted to an “untoward incident”.
The Court referred to an earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that an “untoward incident” can include a passenger falling inside a train and that the law does not require the passenger to have fallen outside the train.
In the present case, the High Court found that the contemporaneous railway records supported the occurrence of the accidental fall. The Deputy Station Superintendent memo and panchnama prepared on the date of the incident recorded that Sanjeev had “fallen from the seat” of the train. This was also corroborated by his father’s testimony that Sanjeev fell from the upper berth because of a sudden jerk.
Judgment and Compensation Order
The Court rejected the contention that the post-mortem finding of myocardial infarction, by itself, was sufficient to rule out the accidental fall. It observed that the post-mortem report was relevant to the cause of death, but could not “efface” the fact of the accidental fall, which was established through contemporaneous records and eyewitness testimony. The Court also noted that there was no documentary or medical evidence establishing that Sanjeev suffered from any pre-existing cardiac ailment.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, the High Court reiterated that Section 124-A of the Railways Act incorporates the principle of strict or no-fault liability and that the expression concerning accidental falling of a passenger from a train must receive a purposive and liberal interpretation.
The Court accordingly concluded that the accidental fall of Sanjeev Kumar from the upper berth inside the moving train constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. It held that the Tribunal had erred by proceeding solely based on the medical cause of death without properly appreciating the other evidence on record. The appeal was consequently allowed, the Tribunal’s judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for determination of the compensation amount. The authorities have been directed to disburse the compensation within two months of receiving the High Court order. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)