Accidental Fall Of Passenger While Trying To Alight From Wrong Train Amounts To 'Untoward Incident': Kerala High Court Orders Compensation

Taking a view that the dependents of the deceased passenger were entitled to compensation, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed thus:

“In this case, the respondent has no case that the deceased had any intention to inflict any such injury to himself. On the other hand, he was trying to alight from the train as it was the wrong train. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that there was no intention on the part of the deceased to inflict any injury to himself and as such it is a clear case of accidental falling coming within the purview of 'untoward incident', as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.”

To put briefly, the deceased had boarded a wrong train and by the time he realized this, it had started moving. Trying to alight, the deceased fell down on the platform at Shornur Railway Station and suffered injuries, which led to his death.

His dependents’ claim for compensation was denied by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam on the ground that the death was due to self-inflicted injury. Aggrieved, the dependents appealed before the High Court.

The issue before the High Court was whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could be styled as ‘self-inflicted injury’ under the exception to proviso of Section 124A of the Railways Act?

Section 124A of the Railways Act provides for compensation on account of untoward accidents. The proviso thereof states that no compensation shall be payable if the injury or death of a passenger is due to self-inflicted injury.

Relying upon the Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018), the court held that intention to inflict injury was necessary to come under the ambit of self-inflicted injury. Reference was also made to the Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) to reiterate that accidental falling from a running passenger train amounts to an untoward incident.

On perusal of the postmortem certificate and final report, the court noted that the deceased died from injuries sustained on the hip and right thigh. Concluding that at the time of the incident, he was attempting to alight from the moving train as he entered a wrong train, it was observed:

“…the respondent has no case that the deceased had any intention to inflict any such injury to himself…there was no intention on the part of the deceased to inflict any injury to himself and as such it is a clear case of accidental falling coming within the purview of 'untoward incident’”.

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate V.K. Balachandran

Counsels for respondent: Standing Counsels for Railways, N K Subramanian and Hari Rao

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate V.K.Balachandran

Counsel for the respondent: Standing Counsels for the Railways, N K Subramanian and Hari Rao

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 669

Case title: Malarkodi P v Union of India

Case number: MFA (RCT) NO. 141 OF 2017

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment