Synopsis

This judgment by the Bombay High Court allows an appeal filed by a passenger against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected his claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a railway accident. The appellant was travelling from Manmad to Jalgaon on the Guwahati Express. The train had no scheduled halt at Jalgaon. When the train approached Jalgaon, he attempted to de-board in panic and fell, suffering serious injuries. The Tribunal held that the incident was a "self-inflicted injury" and not an "untoward incident." The High Court reversed this finding, relying on its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's judgment in Jameela. It held that a passenger sitting near the door who falls accidentally does not attract the exceptions to Section 124A of the Railways Act. Similarly, an attempt to de-board a wrong train out of panic does not constitute a "self-inflicted injury" but is an untoward incident entitling the passenger to compensation.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Rohidas Bandu Kumavat v. Union of India, Through the General Manager, Central Railway, First Appeal No. 1277 of 2018, decided on 24.03.2026 (Bombay High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Jain (Single Judge)
Core Law: Railways Act, 1989 (Sections 123 and 124A).

Bombay High Court awards compensation to passenger who fell while de-boarding a train with no scheduled halt, holds that panic-induced attempt does not amount to "self-inflicted injury" under Railways Act.

2. Legal framework

This judgment interprets the scope of "untoward incident" and the exceptions to liability under the Railways Act.

• Railways Act, 1989:
  Section 123(c): Defines "untoward incident." It includes the a

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.