5 min readNew DelhiFeb 6, 2026 04:34 PM IST
First published on: Feb 6, 2026 at 03:02 PM IST
The Delhi High Court recently awarded Rs 8 lakh compensation to a passenger whose left leg was amputated after he fell from a moving train while setting aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s order dismissing the plea for compensation.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri allowed the appeal against the tribunal’s order which had refused compensation on the ground that his injuries were self-inflicted, ‘occasioned by his own state of intoxication’.
“The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant establish that a mere recording of the smell of alcohol, in the absence of scientific evidence such as a blood alcohol test, is insufficient to deny compensation,” the court noted in an order dated February 3.
It further added that in order to absolve the Railways of liability, it was incumbent upon the respondent to produce reliable medical evidence, which was ‘conspicuously’ absent.
What the court held?
- The record shows that the respondent failed to produce any reliable independent eyewitness or cogent medical evidence to substantiate the plea of self-inflicted injury.
- The reliance placed upon the mere positive assertion of the attending doctor is insufficient to substantiate intoxication.
- It is but natural that a person suffering from traumatic amputation, shock, and acute pain may not be in a cooperative state; the same cannot ipso facto be attributed to consumption of alcohol.
- In order to attract the exceptions under Section 124A of the Act and absolve the Railways of liability, it was incumbent upon the respondent to produce reliable medical evidence, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
- To deny compensation, the injury must be strictly attributable to the exceptions listed in the statutory scheme, such as suicide, criminal acts, or acts committed in a state of intoxication.
- These require a higher standard of proof than what has been proved by the respondent in the present case.
- On an overall consideration of the facts and the law, the tribunal fell into error in dismissing the appellant’s claim.
- The findings of the tribunal are not adequately supported by the evidence on record, and the respondent has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the injured committed an act that falls within the strict exceptions provided under the Act.
- Considering the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained, namely, amputation above the knee of left leg and having regard to the provisions of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs 8 lakh along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
What was the case?
- The appellant filed a claim application before the tribunal alleging that he was travelling from New Delhi to Basti in the Vaishali Express train.
- It was pleaded that due to a heavy rush, he was compelled to stand near the gate of the compartment, and on account of a sudden jerk of the train and thrust given by passengers, he fell and suffered amputation of his left leg.
- The tribunal identified the appellant as a bona fide passenger holding a valid train ticket.
- However, his claim for compensation was rejected, concluding that his injuries were self-inflicted, occasioned by his own state of intoxication, and not due to any “untoward incident”.
- The counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had erred in denying the appellant’s claim as the observations regarding intoxication in the medical record were unsupported by any cogent evidence.
- It was argued that no blood sample was drawn to quantify the alcohol content, nor was any medical basis furnished for the attending doctor’s conclusion.
- On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the medical record to contend that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol and had voluntarily put himself in a perilous position, making the injuries “self-inflicted”.
- It was contended that the incident was the result of mala fide intent to extract compensation.
What is defined as an untoward incident under the Railways Act?
An “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 which says that untoward incident is-
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
Delhi High Court awarded Rs 8 lakh compensation to the passenger. (Image generated using AI) 
Share
