Appeal Dismissed Due to Inconsistencies and Unexplained Delays in Reporting Alleged Train Accident
The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment dated March 25, 2026, upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal to deny compensation to Mr. Tulsi Das, who claimed injuries from an alleged train accident. The appellant's claim was dismissed due to inconsistencies in his narrative and unexplained delays in reporting the incident.
Mr. Tulsi Das had filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the Tribunal's decision, which was handed down on January 3, 2018. The appellant contended that he had sustained grievous injuries, leading to the amputation of both hands, after falling from a train due to overcrowding. He claimed to have boarded Train No. 12920 (Malwa Express) from Sonipat to Jhansi with a valid ticket, which he alleged was lost during the incident.
The Tribunal, however, found inconsistencies in Mr. Das's account, particularly regarding the location and timing of the incident. The appellant had stated that he fell near Sadar Bazar, but medical records from Lok Nayak Hospital indicated the incident occurred at Platform No. 10 of the Old Delhi Railway Station—a station not on the train's route. This discrepancy, coupled with a significant delay in reporting the incident to the police, raised doubts about the credibility of his claim.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, noted that the foundational facts of the incident were unsubstantiated, and the occurrence did not meet the criteria of an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989. The Court also cited the failure to recover a journey ticket during police investigations, which further weakened the appellant's case.
The respondent, Union of India, represented by Mr. Himanshu Pathak, argued that the appellant's failure to provide a consistent account of the incident and the unexplained delay in seeking medical attention were critical factors in the Tribunal's decision to reject the claim. The Court concurred, emphasizing that the unexplained seven-hour gap between the alleged time of the incident and the receipt of information by the police was implausible, especially given the severity of the injuries.
In light of these findings, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's original decision to deny compensation. This judgment underscores the importance of providing consistent and timely accounts in claims of this nature, and the significant burden of proof on claimants to establish the occurrence of an untoward incident.
Bottom Line:
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Claim for compensation on account of injuries sustained due to untoward incident - Tribunal rightly rejected the claim due to inconsistencies in the appellant's version and unexplained delay in reporting the incident.
Statutory provision(s): Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23, Railways Act, 1989
Tulsi Das v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2871847
