Railway Accident Compensation Claims — Procedure and Quantum Under the Railways Act, 1989

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Introduction

Indian Railways carries over 2.3 crore passengers daily, making it one of the largest railway networks in the world. Given this scale, accidents — derailments, collisions, falls during boarding or de-boarding, and incidents at unmanned crossings — are an unfortunate reality. The legal framework for compensating victims of railway accidents is contained primarily in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, read with the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as amended in 2016). This guide explains the statutory scheme, the procedure for filing claims before the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), the quantum of compensation, and the key judicial pronouncements that have shaped this area of law.

Statutory Definitions — Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989

Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides the foundational definitions for Chapter XIII:

“Accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124 — essentially, a train accident in the course of working a railway that results in death or injury to a passenger.
“Untoward incident” is defined under Section 123(c) and includes: (1) the commission of a terrorist act, violent attack, robbery, or dacoity; (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers; and (3) a passenger dying or suffering injury due to being hit by a rolling stock of a railway at a manned or unmanned level crossing.

The distinction matters because “accidents” are covered under Section 124 and “untoward incidents” under Section 124A, though both attract no-fault liability.

No-Fault Liability — Sections 124 and 124A

Section 124 — Liability in Accidents

Section 124 provides that when an accident occurs in the course of working a railway and the accident results in death or injury to a passenger, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation — irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on its part. The amount payable is as prescribed under the Rules.

Section 124A — Liability for Untoward Incidents

Section 124A extends this strict liability framework to “untoward incidents.” The provision reads:

When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed…

Exceptions to Liability

Under the proviso to Section 124A, no compensation is payable if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to:

Suicide or attempted suicide
Self-inflicted injury
His own criminal act
Any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity
Any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment (unless necessitated by an injury from the untoward incident)

Who Is a “Passenger”?

The Explanation to Section 124A defines “passenger” to include: (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date, or a valid platform ticket, and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

The Railway Claims Tribunal — Constitution and Jurisdiction

The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 established the RCT as a specialised forum for adjudicating compensation claims against Indian Railways. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over:

Claims for compensation for death or injury to passengers arising from railway accidents or untoward incidents (Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act)
Claims for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery of goods entrusted for carriage
Claims for refund of fares or freight

The RCT is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but is guided by the principles of natural justice. Each Bench comprises a judicial member and a technical member.

Who Can File a Claim — Section 125

Under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, an application for compensation may be made by:

The person who sustained the injury or suffered the loss
Any agent duly authorised by such person
Where the injured person is a minor — by his guardian
Where death has resulted — by any dependant of the deceased (or by the guardian of a dependant who is a minor)

Every application filed by a dependant is deemed to be for the benefit of every other dependant as well.

How to File a Claim Before the RCT

Step 1 — Identify the Correct Bench

The application may be filed before the Bench having territorial jurisdiction over:

The place where the passenger purchased the ticket or obtained the pass
The place where the accident or untoward incident occurred
The destination station
The place where the claimant normally resides

Step 2 — Prepare the Application

The application must be in the prescribed form, supported by the following documents:

Copy of the railway ticket, pass, or platform ticket (or other evidence of bona fide travel)
FIR or GRP (Government Railway Police) report, if available
Post-mortem report or medical records, as applicable
Death certificate (in case of death)
Identity and age proof of the deceased or injured passenger
Proof of the claimant’s relationship with the deceased (for dependants)

Step 3 — Filing and Fee

Applications can be filed at the registry of the relevant RCT Bench. The application fee is nominal. E-filing facilities are also available through the RCT’s online portal.

Step 4 — Hearing and Evidence

The Tribunal follows a summary procedure guided by natural justice principles. The claimant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger and that the death or injury resulted from a railway accident or untoward incident. The standard of proof is civil, not criminal — proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.

Limitation Period for Filing Claims

Under Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, an application for compensation arising from an accident must be filed within one year from the date of occurrence of the accident or untoward incident.

Additionally, Section 106 of the Railways Act requires that no application shall be preferred until the expiration of three months from the date on which intimation of the claim was given to the railway administration — though in practice, this requirement does not bar the RCT from entertaining a claim where the delay is explained.

Quantum of Compensation

The quantum of no-fault compensation under Sections 124 and 124A is governed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 (effective 1 January 2017). The key amounts are:

Nature of Loss or Injury	Compensation Amount
Death	Rs. 8,00,000
Loss of two limbs or both hands/feet, or total loss of sight	Rs. 8,00,000
Loss of one limb or one hand/foot, or loss of sight of one eye	Rs. 8,00,000
Total permanent deafness	Rs. 8,00,000
Severe facial disfigurement	Rs. 8,00,000
Injury totally depriving the person of all capacity to work	Rs. 8,00,000
Other injuries (fractures, burns, etc.)	Rs. 32,000 to Rs. 8,00,000 (depending on severity)

Prior to the 2016 amendment, the maximum compensation for death was Rs. 4,00,000 — the amendment doubled this ceiling across all categories.

It is important to note that these amounts represent the statutory no-fault compensation ceiling. Claimants are not precluded from seeking higher compensation through separate proceedings under general tort law, though the no-fault scheme under Chapter XIII provides a faster and more certain remedy.

Key Supreme Court Decisions

Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018) 9 SCC 578

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court resolved conflicting High Court views on the scope of Section 124A. The Court held:

Boarding and de-boarding: Death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train constitutes an “untoward incident” attracting no-fault liability.
Self-inflicted injury requires intent: The concept of “self-inflicted injury” under the proviso requires an intention to inflict injury — mere negligence of any degree on the part of the passenger does not qualify.
Contributory negligence irrelevant: The principle of contributory negligence cannot be invoked in claims based on no-fault liability under Section 124A.
Ticket not essential for proof: The absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate the passenger’s bona fide status, provided other circumstantial evidence establishes that the deceased was a passenger.

Jameela v. Union of India (2010) 8 SCC 372

In this case, a passenger fell to his death near Magarwara Railway Station. The Railways contended that the deceased was negligent in standing near the door. The Supreme Court held that even if the deceased fell due to his own negligence, it has no bearing on the compensation payable under Section 124A. The Court observed that Section 124A lays down strict liability, and once the incident falls within its purview, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The Railways’ allegation that the deceased was standing negligently at the door was termed “entirely based on speculation.”

Appeals From the RCT to the High Court

Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, an appeal lies to the High Court from every order of the Claims Tribunal. The appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date of the order appealed against. No appeal lies from an order passed by consent of the parties.

There is conflicting judicial opinion on whether the High Court can condone delay in filing appeals beyond 90 days by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — some High Courts have held that the period is strict and cannot be extended, while others have taken a more liberal view.

Recent Judicial Developments

Shri Sukhnandan v. Union of India (2026) — Allahabad High Court

In a significant ruling from the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Prashant Kumar held that the death of a foetus aged five months or more in the mother’s womb constitutes an independent accident for the purpose of compensation under Section 124A. In this case, a pregnant woman with a valid ticket on the Marudhar Express fell while boarding the train at Barabanki station in 2018 and subsequently died. The Railway Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 8,00,000 for her death but denied compensation for the loss of her 8-9-month-old foetus.

The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamna Sharma v. Union of India, which recognised that a foetus can be attributed legal personhood under certain circumstances, directed an additional Rs. 8,00,000 in compensation for the loss of the unborn child — treating the death of the foetus as a separate accident distinct from the death of the mother.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.