Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal, Awards Rs 8 Lakh Compensation in Train Injury Case
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling, awarding Rs 8 lakh in compensation to a passenger who suffered a traumatic leg amputation after falling from a moving train. The court set aside an earlier order by the Railway Claims Tribunal that had denied compensation on grounds of alleged intoxication.
Court Rejects Intoxication Claim Due to Lack of Evidence
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, in his February 3 order, emphasized that the tribunal's reliance on intoxication claims was insufficient without proper scientific evidence. "The precedents 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.
The court further observed that to absolve the Railways of liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the respondent needed to produce reliable medical evidence, which was "conspicuously absent" in this case.
What the Court Specifically Held
The Delhi High Court made several key observations in its judgment:
- The respondent failed to produce any reliable independent eyewitness or cogent medical evidence to substantiate the claim of self-inflicted injury
- Reliance on the attending doctor's positive assertion about intoxication was insufficient without supporting evidence
- A person suffering from traumatic amputation, shock, and acute pain may not be cooperative, but this cannot automatically be attributed to alcohol consumption
- To deny compensation, injuries must be strictly attributable to exceptions like suicide, criminal acts, or proven intoxication, requiring a higher standard of proof
- The tribunal's findings were not adequately supported by evidence on record
Background of the Case
The appellant had filed a claim application before the tribunal alleging that while traveling from New Delhi to Basti in the Vaishali Express, he was compelled to stand near the compartment door due to heavy rush. He claimed that due to a sudden jerk of the train and thrust from other passengers, he fell and suffered amputation of his left leg above the knee.
While the tribunal identified the appellant as a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket, it rejected his compensation claim, concluding that his injuries were self-inflicted and "occasioned by his own state of intoxication," rather than due to an "untoward incident."
Legal Arguments Presented
The appellant's counsel argued that the tribunal erred in denying the claim as observations regarding intoxication in medical records were unsupported by cogent evidence. They emphasized that no blood sample was drawn to quantify alcohol content, nor was any medical basis furnished for the attending doctor's conclusion.
The respondent's counsel, however, relied on medical records to contend that the appellant was under alcohol influence and had voluntarily placed himself in a perilous position, making the injuries "self-inflicted." They argued the incident resulted from mala fide intent to extract compensation.
Understanding "Untoward Incident" Under Railways Act
The court's decision hinged on the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which includes:
- The commission of terrorist acts, violent attacks, robbery, dacoity, rioting, shoot-outs, or arson in trains or railway premises
- The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers
The court found that the appellant's fall qualified as an untoward incident under this definition, making him eligible for compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
Compensation Award Details
Considering the nature and gravity of injuries sustained - amputation above the knee of the left leg - and having regard to the provisions of the compensation rules, the court held the appellant entitled to:
- Compensation of Rs 8 lakh
- Interest at the rate of 12% per annum
The court concluded that on overall consideration of facts and law, the tribunal had fallen into error in dismissing the appellant's claim, and the respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving that the injured committed an act falling within the strict exceptions provided under the Act.
