Delhi HC rejects railway compensation claim over train fall

The Delhi High Court rejected the railway compensation claim filed by Tulsi Das. Times of India reported the ruling. The court said there was no proof of “bonafide travel”. It also said the basic facts behind his injuries had not been established.

Das sought compensation after claiming he fell from a moving train. He said the fall led to the amputation of both arms below the elbows. In its order, the high court said the foundational details had not been proved. It added that those details “remain unsubstantiated”.

Why the railway compensation claim was rejected?

Also, the Delhi High Court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal’s earlier decision. As the judgment on CaseMine notes, Das was not a “bona fide” passenger. In addition, it said his injuries did not result from any “untoward incident”. The reference was to the Railways Act, 1989.

According to Das, he boarded the Malwa Express at Sonipat station on March 25, 2015. He said he had a valid second-class ticket for Jhansi. Meanwhile, he claimed he fell because of heavy passenger rush. He placed the fall between Sonipat and New Delhi railway stations. He further claimed that both arms were amputated below the elbows.

Don’t miss…Liquidity crisis drives Brightline Florida debt restructuring

Still, Das argued that he lost the ticket during the incident. He said its non-recovery alone did not mean he was not a passenger.

Conflicting accounts of the incident

The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected that explanation. For example, it pointed to a delay before police were informed. At the same time, it noted that no journey ticket was found. It also said the explanation for its loss was not convincing. Separately, it noted that his other belongings were reportedly still intact.

The high court also referred to these “inconsistencies”. It said Das placed the fall near Sadar Bazar in Delhi. Meanwhile, the MLC from Lok Nayak Hospital listed platform 10. It placed the accident at Old Delhi Railway Station.

“Admittedly, the said train does not pass through the Old Delhi Station and instead runs via New Delhi Railway Station. Therefore, the inconsistency between the alleged place of occurrence of the incident, and as recorded in the medical records, goes to the root of the matter and casts serious doubt on the appellant’s version of bona fide travel,” Justice Manoj Ohri said.

Time gap and hospital record

The court also examined the timeline. It recorded that information about the incident was received at 1.30 am. At the same time, Das claimed he had fallen at about 6.30 pm. He said the train would then have been crossing the Sadar Bazar section.

“This reflects a gap of nearly seven 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 survived. The said unexplained delay, particularly in a case involving grievous injuries of such a nature which resulted in double amputation of both the hands, is a significant circumstance which cannot be overlooked,” the court concluded.

News on railway transport, industry, and railway technologies from Railway Supply that you might have missed: