New Delhi, March 29 The Delhi High Court has rejected a compensation plea by a railway passenger who was forced to undergo amputation of both his hands after allegedly falling from a train in 2015.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said the discrepancy regarding the location of the incident in the records and the passenger's testimony went to the root of the matter, which cast a "serious doubt" on "bona fide travel," and since the fundamental facts remained "unsubstantiated," the claim could not be brought within the scope of an "untoward incident."
In its order of March 25, the court dismissed the passenger's appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision, which had rejected his claim for "injury compensation" in 2018, stating that there was no reason to interfere with it.
According to the appellant, he boarded the Malwa Express from Sonipat Railway Station in March 2015 to travel to Jhansi on a valid second-class ticket.
He claimed that due to heavy rush in the train, he accidentally fell between Sonipat and New Delhi Railway Stations, resulting in grievous injuries that led to the amputation of both hands below the elbow.
In the judgment, the court observed that while the appellant claimed he fell near Sadar Bazar, the records of Lok Nayak Hospital mentioned the location of the incident as platform number 10 of the Old Delhi Railway Station, even though the train admittedly did not pass through it.
Furthermore, the records at the Old Delhi Railway Station revealed that the information regarding the incident was received at about 1:30 am, whereas, according to the appellant, the incident occurred at about 6.30 pm.
"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 survived, which resulted in double amputation of both hands, is a significant circumstance which cannot be overlooked," the court observed.
"In the present case, as noted above, the fundamental facts relating to the manner of occurrence remain unsubstantiated, and the claim cannot be brought within the scope of an 'untoward incident'.
"The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded that the alleged occurrence does not fall within the definition of an "untoward incident" under the Act... The present appeal is dismissed," the court concluded.