Delhi High Court Rejects Compensation Claim in Train Fall Case Due to Contradictions in Evidence

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a compensation claim filed by a railway passenger who suffered amputation of both hands after an alleged fall from a train, holding that material inconsistencies in the record cast serious doubt on the credibility of the claim.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, in an order dated March 25, upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had earlier rejected the passenger’s plea for injury compensation in 2018. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the case did not fall within the scope of an “untoward incident” under the law.

According to the appellant, he had boarded the Malwa Express from Sonipat Railway Station in March 2015 with a valid second-class ticket and was travelling to Jhansi. He claimed that due to overcrowding in the train, he accidentally fell between Sonipat and New Delhi Railway Stations, sustaining severe injuries that ultimately led to the amputation of both hands below the elbow.

However, upon examining the record, the High Court noted significant discrepancies between the appellant’s version and the documentary evidence. While the appellant stated that the incident occurred near Sadar Bazar, medical records from Lok Nayak Hospital indicated that the place of occurrence was platform number 10 of Old Delhi Railway Station. The Court observed that this version was implausible, particularly since the train in question did not pass through that station.

The Court also highlighted a substantial time gap between the alleged occurrence and the reporting of the incident. As per the appellant, the accident took place around 6:30 pm. In contrast, railway records showed that information regarding the incident was received at Old Delhi Railway Station only around 1:30 am, nearly seven hours later.

“This reflects a gap of nearly 7 hours between the alleged time of the incident and the receipt of information by the police, and thereafter admitting him to the hospital, making it difficult to accept that a person sustaining such serious injuries would have remained unattended for such a prolonged period and survive which resulted in double amputation of both the hands, is a significant circumstance which cannot be overlooked,” the Court observed.

The Bench found that these inconsistencies went to the root of the matter and created serious doubt regarding whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger and whether the incident occurred in the manner alleged. It held that the foundational facts necessary to establish the claim remained unsubstantiated.

“In the present case, as noted above, the foundational facts relating to the manner of occurrence remain unsubstantiated, and the claim cannot be brought within the fold of an ‘untoward incident’,” the Court stated.

Under the relevant legal framework, compensation is awarded only when an injury arises from an “untoward incident” during bona fide travel. The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s finding that this threshold had not been met in the present case.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the inconsistencies in the evidence were too significant to ignore and undermined the credibility of the claim. The ruling underscores that while compensation provisions are intended to provide relief in genuine cases, claimants must establish the basic facts of the incident with consistency and reliability.

Source: The Print