Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation

"Negligence on the part of the passenger, by itself, cannot be treated as a 'self-inflicted injury' so as to attract the exception under Section 124-A of the Act." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 17, 2026, held that death or injury sustained while attempting to board a moving train constitutes an "untoward incident" and mere negligence cannot be branded as a "self-inflicted injury" to disentitle claimants from statutory compensation.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri ruled that the "mere absence of a ticket with the deceased does not negative his status as a bona fide passenger," setting aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order that had rejected a death compensation claim.

The appellants approached the High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging an order dated February 7, 2020, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. The claim arose from the death of Ravinder Kumar Mittal, who died on June 8, 2016, after falling between the platform and the train while travelling from Muzaffarnagar to Naya Ghaziabad Railway Station aboard the Shalimar Express (Train No. 14646). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on the grounds that no journey ticket was recovered from the body and the Railway records described the casualty merely as a "run over" case.

The primary questions before the High Court were whether the non-recovery of a journey ticket disproved the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger and whether the act of attempting to board a moving train falls within the statutory exception of "self-inflicted injury" under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Non-Recovery Of Journey Ticket Does Not Rebut Bona Fide Passenger Status

Addressing the issue of the missing journey ticket, the High Court reiterated that non-recovery of a physical ticket from the body of a victim cannot be the sole basis to deny relief. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court explained that once the initial factual burden is discharged by the claimants, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise.

In this case, the son of the deceased had categorically deposed as AW-1 that his father purchased the journey ticket in his presence and placed it in his pocket. The Court observed that his testimony could not be discredited merely because he was a legal heir and beneficiary, especially when the Railways failed to lead any evidence demonstrating that the deceased was traveling without a ticket.

Tribunal Erred In Treating 'Run Over' Description As Disqualification

The Court closely evaluated the evidentiary record relied upon by the Tribunal, specifically a General Diary entry mentioning that a crowd had gathered after a person was "cut" by the train. The High Court observed that this police report nowhere indicated that the deceased was intentionally crossing the railway tracks or committing a deliberate act.

Instead, the High Court emphasized that the statutory inquiry report of the Railways contained a direct statement from the Loco Pilot of Train No. 14646. The Loco Pilot explicitly stated that when the train departed the station, a passenger came between the train and the platform while attempting to board the moving train and was consequently run over.

The Court noted that the generic term "run over" used in Railway memos, daily diaries, and Train Signal Registers does not explain the precise manner of an incident, whereas the Loco Pilot’s eyewitness testimony provided the specific factual narrative.

Boarding Moving Train Does Not Constitute 'Self-Inflicted Injury' Under Section 124-A

"Negligence on the part of the passenger, by itself, cannot be treated as a 'self-inflicted injury' so as to attract the exception under Section 124-A of the Act."

Applying the principles laid down in Rina Devi, Justice Ohri highlighted that sustained injuries or fatal accidents occurring in the course of boarding or deboarding a train fall squarely within the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The Court clarified that while attempting to board a running train may be an act of negligence or carelessness, it lacks the deliberate intent to cause harm to oneself.

The bench emphasized that there was zero material on record to suggest that the deceased intended to cause self-harm or commit suicide. In the absence of an intentional act of self-harm, the Railways cannot take shelter under the statutory exceptions carved out under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Matter Remanded To Tribunal For Quantification Of Compensation

Finding that the Tribunal erred on both counts—treating the absence of a ticket as conclusive proof against passenger status and relying mechanically on the "run over" label—the High Court set aside the impugned rejection order.

The Court remanded the matter back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to assess the compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law. The Tribunal was requested to direct the disbursement of the awarded compensation within two months from receiving the order, directing the matter to be listed at first instance before the Tribunal on September 7, 2026.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court reaffirmed that compensation under the Railways Act is based on the principle of strict liability and beneficial social welfare legislation. The ruling solidifies the legal position that accidental falls during boarding remain fully compensable untoward incidents.

Date of Decision: 17 August 2026