Smt. Heena Vinod Vachhani And Ors. vs The Union Of India, Represented By The General Manager,

2026:BHC-AS:21497
HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1447 OF 2016
1. Heena Vinod Vachhani )
2. Bhavika Vinod Vachhani )
3. Harsha Vinod Vachhani )
4. Kamala Shyamsundar Vachhani )
All residing at 201, Vinay Apartment )
Behind Chopra Court, )
Ulhasnagar-421 003, District Thane. ) ….Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India, )
Represented By The General Manager, )
Central Railway, Mumbai, CST. ) .…Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellants.
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Gautam Modanwal & Mr. Prasad Sawant for the
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
th
DATED : 06 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT :
th
1. This matter was admitted on 10 February, 2026.
2. This appeal is filed by the original applicants challenging an order of
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal), whereby, application
made for compensation on account of death of Mr. Vinod Vachhani due to
an accident came to be rejected. The Tribunal opined that the deceased was
1 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
was not a bonafide passenger, since the ticket was not found at the time of
the accident and further the accident does not fall within the meaning of
“untoward incident” as defined by the Railways Act, 1989, since the
deceased was knocked down while crossing the track between Kalyan and
Thakurli Railway Station.
3. I have heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the original applicants and
Mr. Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The deceased was a self-employed businessman engaged in the
th
business of electrical goods. On 10 November, 2009, the deceased boarded
a train from Ulhasnagar Station to travel to Dadar Station for his business.
th
As per the Station Master's Report dated 10 November, 2009 prepared at
08:00 hours, it is stated that a message was received from travelling public,
that a male passenger is hit by an unknown train and seriously injured
between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station. This message was received
around 07:50 hours and the said report was prepared at 08.50 hours.
5. The Railway Authorities reached the accident spot and found the
dead body of the deceased. On search of his personal belongings, a purse
containing driving license, PAN Card, mobile phone, watch, ring and cash
were found. An inquest panchnama was prepared, in which, it is stated that
the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train. A Post-Mortem was
conducted by the government hospital in which the cause of death was
mentioned as “shock due to head injury”.
6. The applicants made an application to the Tribunal seeking
compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. A written statement was filed
by the Railways and an investigation report was also prepared in the year
2010 by the Railway Authorities. Evidence was led by both the parties and
st
finally the Tribunal rejected the application on 31 March, 2016. It is on
2 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
this backdrop, that the present appeal has been filed by the original
applicants.
7. Two issues arise for my consideration, namely, whether the Tribunal
was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and
that the accident which resulted into his death was not on account of
“untoward incident” as defined by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989.
8. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on
account of “untoward incidents”, which entitles a passenger who has been
injured or his dependant in case of death to maintain an action and recover
damages in respect thereof. Proviso to Section 124A provides that no
compensation shall be payable if the death or injury is due to suicide, self
inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication or insanity or any natural
cause or disease, unless it arises out of an “untoward incident”.
9. Explanation to Section 124A defines “passenger” to include 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”. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines
“passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section
2 defines certain words, and the meaning given therein should be applied
unless the context otherwise requires. Explanation to Section 124A defines
“passenger” specifically for the purpose of compensation and, therefore, the
definition of “passenger” in Section 2 would not be applicable when it
comes to provisions of Section 124A. Explanation to Section 124A provides
that a person is a passenger if he has purchased a valid ticket for travelling
on any date by a train carrying passengers and becomes a victim of an
“untoward incident”. This is in sharp contrast to Section 2(29) which
defines passenger to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.
3 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
10. The phrase “with” is absent when it comes to the provisions of
Section 124A. Therefore, the contention of the Railways that the ticket
should be carried by a passenger and found at the time of the accident for
being eligible to claim compensation, cannot be accepted. In the instant
case, though the inquest panchnama records that purse, PAN Card, mobile
phone, etc. were found it does not state that the ticket was found. However,
alongwith the application to the Tribunal, the applicants have enclosed
st th
Monthly Season Ticket (MST) for the period from 21 October, 2009 to 20
November, 2009 in the name of the deceased. On the said first class MST ID
No. 856966 is mentioned and the applicants have also enclosed the said ID
Card issued by the Railways, which bears the same number. The date of the
th
incident i.e. 10 November, 2009 falls within the period during which the
MST was valid. Non-mentioning of the MST found at the time of the search
by the Railway Authorities could be an error. However, assuming that the
deceased was not carrying the MST at the time of the incident, whether he
could still be treated as a “bonafide passenger”.
11. I have already opined that the term “passenger” as defined for the
purpose of Section 124A requires a person for being eligible for
compensation to have purchased a valid ticket for travelling and becomes a
victim of an “untoward incident”. This is in sharp contrast to Section 2(29)
which requires a person to carry the ticket with him for being treated as a
passenger. In the instant case, it is not the submission of the Railways that
the ID Card and the MST filed alongwith the application is not issued by
them or is fraudulent. Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased
had purchased a valid MST for travel from Ulhasnagar Railway Station to
Dadar Railway Station. The requirement of carrying the ticket at the time of
the incident for being treated as a passenger is not borne out from the
explanation to Section 124A. The requirement is purchase of a valid ticket,
4 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
which is not disputed in the present case. It is not uncommon that many
times a person forgets to carry the MST while travelling. If, however, the
claimants produces the ticket with the ID alongwith the original application
and such ticket has not been disputed by the Railways, then in my view,
and more particularly keeping in mind the objective of Section 124A and
the definition therein, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger.
12. Another way of looking at the issue is that the legislature consciously
thought of not providing the phrase “with” in Explanation (ii) to Section
124A, as contrast to Section 2(29). During the accident the belongings of a
victim gets scattered and difficult to find and probably it could be with this
intention in mind that the phrase “with” is not appearing in Explanation (ii)
to Section 124A. This interpretation goes in favour of the claimants in the
present case. It is also possible to interpret that the phrase “passenger” on a
conjoint reading of Section 2(29) with explanation (ii) to Section 124A
would mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket and includes a
person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling. The inclusive part in
the Explanation would cover a situation where the claimant has to prove
purchase of a valid ticket and the requirement of finding a ticket at the spot
of the incident is dispensed with. In the instant case, though the MST may
not have been found as per the inquest panchnama, it was produced
alongwith the original application and the genuineness of which has not
been questioned by the Railway Authorities. Therefore, even on this count
the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina
1
Devi has observed that even if the ticket is not found at the time of the
accident and later on an affidavit is filed which shows that the deceased or
the injured was having a valid ticket, then the claim cannot be rejected on
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572
5 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
the ground of ticket having not been found at the time of the accident. In
my view, the case of the applicants stands on a much stronger footing since
in this case though “assuming” that the deceased was not carrying MST at
the time of the accident, but when the claim was lodged for compensation,
the applicants have filed the MST and the Railway ID Card which the
Railways have not found to be non-genuine.
14. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of this
2
Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kamal Chandrakant Shikhare & Ors.
wherein it was held as under :-
“6. Admittedly, the local pass was not found at the site of
the accident. However, the wife of deceased in her
examination-in-chief and cross-examination produced the
local pass along with the identity card. It is not disputed that
the local pass was valid on the date of the accident. The
genuineness of the local pass though disputed by the
appellant could not be proved as to how it is non-genuine
and what steps did they take if according to them it was a
non-genuine. Therefore, the genuineness of the local pass
stands proved. There could be various reasons that on the
date of the accident the deceased may have forgotten the
local pass at home but that would not disentitle the
compensation amount to the dependents. Therefore, the
finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger cannot be faulted.”
15. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was
not a bonafide passenger merely because the MST was not found from the
search of the body of the deceased, but was later on enclosed with the
original application, cannot be accepted. In my view, the deceased is a
“passenger” as defined by the explanation to Section 124A of the Railways
Act, 1989.
th
2 FA/659/2014 decided on 08 December, 2025
6 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
16. I make it clear that the above analysis does not mean that a
passenger should not carry a valid ticket while travelling. It is the duty and
in the interest of the passenger to travel alongwith a valid ticket, but the
Court cannot rule out that on many occasions, a person does forget to carry
a valid MST and, therefore, atleast for the purpose of Section 124A, a
construction which will advance the object of the welfare legislation should
be adopted than an interpretation which will deprive an eligible claimant to
claim compensation, moreso when ticket is enclosed with the application.
17. The next issue which arises for my consideration is whether the
accident which resulted into the death of the deceased can be treated as an
“untoward incident” as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989.
18. As per the Station Master's Report, which is the first document
prepared at 08:50 hours, it states that a message from travelling public was
received stating that a male person was hit by an unknown train resulting
into head injury between Kalyan Railway Station and Thakurli Railway
th
Station. The inquest panchnama is prepared on the same day i.e. 10
November, 2009 at 10:25 hours. It is important to note that the inquest
panchnama prepared at 10:25 hours states the deceased was knocked down
by an unknown train, whereas, in the evidence of Mr. Bhere, Deputy Station
Master, who was on duty at Kalyan Railway Station on the day of incident
states that at around 09:00 hours, a memo was received from the guard of
TL-8 Train stating that a person was run over by his train. The station diary
has been annexed to the evidence of Mr. Bhere and the date mentioned on
rd th
the station diary is 23 January, 2015. There is no date of 10 November,
2009 in the said diary.
7 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
19. It is also important to note that if at 09:00 hours a memo was
received from the guard of TL-8 Train stating that a person was run over by
his train then why there is no reference of this memo or the number of the
train in the inquest panchnama which was prepared at 10:25 hours, much
after what is stated in the station diary. It is also important to note that the
signature on the Station Master's Report of the Station Manager does not
tally with the signature of Mr. Bhere who has not only signed affidavit
before the Tribunal, but whose signature also appears on the station diary
which is annexed to the said affidavit. On a bare perusal of the two
signatures, there is a huge difference between the two and, therefore, the
evidence led by the Railways, cannot be relied upon.
20. The inquest panchnama is prepared in the presence of two panchas.
These panchas were not eyewitness to the incident, but it is stated by the
panchas that as per their opinion and police opinion, the deceased was
knocked down by an unknown train resulting into his death. Such an
opinion by persons who were not eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon for
arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was knocked down by an
unknown train.
21. The Post-Mortem Report states the cause of death as “shock due to
head injury”. When a person falls from a moving train between two Railway
Stations and hits the ground or the track on which he falls, certainly the
speed and gravity at which a person falls would severely injure a person's
skull or head. This reinforces the submission made by the applicants that
the deceased died on account of an accidental fall from a moving train.
22. The Tribunal has also relied upon an investigation report prepared on
th
09 June, 2010 for rejecting the application. The said report is prepared
based on the Station Master's Report and inquest panchnama. I have
8 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
already given my views on both these documents above and, therefore, any
conclusions in the inquiry report based on the said two documents will
meet the same fate as that of Station Master's Report and the inquest
panchnama. Further the inquiry report states that this is the prima facie
th
view. Though this report was prepared on 9 June, 2010 there is no
mention of the fact which is stated in the station diary that the guard of
TL-8 Train informed that a person was run over by his train. In the inquiry
report, for the first time, an observation is made that the deceased was hit
by an unknown local train while crossing the Railway track. The averment
of crossing the Railway track was never made in the earlier document. Even
the author of the inquiry report was not examined by the Railways.
Therefore, I have my grave doubts on the reliance placed on the
investigation report by the Tribunal for rejecting the application. In the
written statement also, based on the above inquiry report, it is the stand of
the Railways that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track.
There is no eyewitness to this incident. Therefore, the submission that the
deceased was knocked down while crossing the track is merely based on
assumption and surmises without any iota of evidence in that regard.
23. The Railways have led evidence of Mr. Bhere. I have already observed
that the signature of Mr. Bhere appearing on the affidavit and the station
diary does not tally with the signature appearing on the Station Master's
Report. For the first time in 2015, the Railways have stated that the guard
of train number TL-8 informed that a person was run over by his train. The
Railways have not led the evidence of the guard, and this fact has come up
for the first time in the affidavit of Mr. Bhere in the year 2015, when the
accident happened in the year 2009.
24. In the Station Master's Report, the reason against which a tick mark is
found, states “hit by unknown train while trespassing”. I fail to understand
9 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
as to on what basis the said tick mark is made when there was no
eyewitness to show that the deceased was trespassing.
25. The applicants have led the evidence of the mother and brother of
the deceased. Certainly, they were not eyewitness to the incident, but the
mother in her evidence has stated that she was staying with the deceased
and the deceased has left the house at 07:30 am to go to Dadar for his
business purpose. This fact, when connected with the timing of the incident
goes on to show, on the basis of preponderance of probability that the
deceased left the house at 07:30 hours took a train to travel to Dadar and at
around 07:50 hours fell down from a moving train, resulting into his death.
If the deceased was hit by a train, then the Motormen would have informed
the Station Master of the nearest Railway Station, but there is no such
averment, except for the first time coming in the affidavit of 2015 of
Mr. Bhere, on which, I have already expressed my views above.
26. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the Post-Morterm Report for
coming to a conclusion that the injury suggest that the deceased has not
fallen from the running train, but died under other circumstances, cannot
be accepted. The Tribunal is not a medical expert to give an opinion on the
basis of the injuries. Therefore, this reasoning cannot be accepted.
27. Proviso to Section 124A provides for refusal to pay compensation if
the death occurs due to self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication
or insanity. In my view, the incident referred to hereinabove does not fall
under any of the exceptions, nor has any case been made out before the
Tribunal by the Railways that the incident falls within any of the
exceptions.
28. For all the above reasons, I hold that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger and the accident was on account of an “untoward incident”
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
10 of 11

HMK 501. FA-1447-2016.doc
29. The Tribunal’s order is quashed. The original applicants are directed
to lodge a claim for receipt of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of
realization, subject to a cap of Rs.8,00,000/-.
30. The amount should be remitted to the bank accounts of the claimants
within eight weeks of the claimants giving their bank details.
31. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
11 of 11
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/05/2026 16:25:56