Vijender Singh vs. Union of India
Background
In 2018, the appellant purchased a valid train ticket from Shahdara to Narela. While trying to board his train amid a crowded platform, the train began moving, he could not grab the compartment handle, and he fell onto the platform, injuring his wrist. He was treated at a hospital and later filed a compensation claim, but the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed it, doubting whether the injury really happened during an attempt to board the train (partly based on a delayed statement he gave to the Railway Protection Force months later).
Decision Breakdown
The High Court found that the Tribunal had failed to weigh the evidence as a whole: contemporaneous records made on the very day of the accident (a Station Master's memo and a police daily diary entry) both confirmed a passenger fell while boarding that specific train, and the appellant's possession of a valid ticket was undisputed. The Court held that a late, disputed RPF statement should not override same-day official records, and that minor inconsistencies (such as the exact medical description of the injury) don't undermine a genuine claim. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that "accidental falling" while boarding a train must be read broadly and generously, since railway compensation is meant to operate on a "no-fault" basis to protect genuine passengers. The Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal and sent the case back for the Tribunal to now calculate and award the actual compensation amount, to be paid within two months of the order.
Lesson Learnt
If you are injured while genuinely trying to board or exit a train, you are very likely covered under railway "untoward incident" compensation law, even if you technically hadn't fully boarded yet: courts read this protection broadly in favour of passengers, and contemporaneous official records (station logs, police diary entries) carry more weight than a statement taken from you much later.