Shri. Durgaiah Komuravelli vs Union Of India
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:17613
ppn 1 44.fa-490.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.04.15
18:16:34 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRACHI
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
FIRST APPEAL NO.490 OF 2016
1. Durgaiah Komuravelli
Aged 54 years,
2. Smt. Buchavva Komuravelli
Aged 49 years,
Room No.322/26, premana Chawl,
Anand Gadh, Park Site, Vikhroli (W),
Mumbai – 400 079. ….Appellants
(Original Claimants)
V/s.
Union of India
Through General Manager,
Central Railway,
Having his office at G. M. Building,
nd
2 Floor, CST Mumbai,
Mumbai – 400 001. .…Respondent
(Original Respondent)
----
Mr. Vaneet Khosla for the appellants.
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. Gautam Modonwal and Mr. Prasad Sawant for the
respondent.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 15 April 2026
Judgment :
1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants challenging an order
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 7 January 2015,
whereby the claim for compensation has been dismissed primarily on the
ground that the incident does not fall within the definition of an “untoward
incident” as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. On 24 September 2010, Mr. Srinivas Komuravelli, while travelling at
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 18:36:04 :::
ppn 2 44.fa-490.16.doc
around 11:30 p.m. from Dockyard Road railway station to Vikhroli railway
station, met with an accident at Sewri railway station and died. The parents
of Mr. Srinivas, thereafter, filed an application for compensation under the
Railways Act, 1989 which came to be dismissed. It is on this background
that the present appeal is filed.
3. I have heard Mr, Khosla, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr.Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Insofar as the recovery of ticket is concerned, the inquest panchnama
prepared on the date of the incident records that a ticket dated 24
September 2010 for the journey from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road was
recovered along with Hyderabad-Mumbai railway ticket. This is a report
prepared by the authorities of the respondent. Even the police report
prepared confirms the recovery of the ticket for journey from Vikhroli to
Dockyard Road. Therefore, insofar as the issue of “bonafide passenger” is
concerned, the appellants have proved that the deceased was travelling on
a valid ticket.
5. Now coming to the issue of “untoward incident,” the deceased fell on
the track which was going towards CSMT railway station whereas the
deceased was travelling from Dockyard Road to Vikhroli in the opposite
direction. The Dockyard Road railway station is on the right hand side of
the train moving towards Bandra, whereas Sewri railway station is towards
the left. It is possible that due to rush at Sewri railway station, the deceased
who was standing near the door may have been pushed down and lost his
balance from force from left side and had fallen on the track towards CSMT.
At that point of time, the train going towards CSMT would have hit the
deceased resulting in his death.
6. It is important to note that though the timing of the incident was
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 18:36:04 :::
ppn 3 44.fa-490.16.doc
23:30 hours, there would be passengers on the railway station to witness
the incident. If the deceased was struck by a moving train while crossing
the track at the station, then there would have been passengers on the
platform who would have observed him crossing the track. There is no
evidence or eye witness of any person stating that the deceased was
crossing the track at the time of the incident. Even the Motorman, who
might have seen, the deceased being struck, was not examined. The details
of train is also not stated in the records of the respondent as required as per
Form-2. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent that the
deceased, who died while crossing the track by moving train, cannot be
accepted.
7. The fact that the train ticket was from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road.
indicates that the deceased may have boarded the train at Dockyard Road
railway station which is on the right side of the train moving towards
Bandra. There is no reason for the deceased to cross the railway track at
Sewri. The respondent should have led evidence of any witness in support
of their submission that the deceased was crossing the tracks at the time of
the incident.
8. In the absence of the same, the circumstantial evidence would show
that the deceased fell down from a train while travelling from Dockyard
Road to Vikhroli on the other side of the platform and he was hit by a train
moving towards CSMT station, which has resulted into his death.
9. In a case dealing with social welfare legislation, if there is any doubt
with respect to the nature of the incident and the authorities have not led
any evidence of any witness but the circumstantial evidence in the form of
the railway ticket tilts in favour of the original claimants, then an
interpretation which will favour the claimants should be adopted.
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 18:36:04 :::
ppn 4 44.fa-490.16.doc
10. I have examined this issue without considering the evidence adduced
by the claimants through their witness, Mr.Sagar More since the railway
authorities and the tribunal have alleged that Mr. Sagar More was a planted
witness. Therefore, even if the evidence of Mr. Sagar More is ignored for the
reason stated above, the benefit of doubt in the absence of any eye witness
and by relying upon the ticket, in my view, would fall within the definition
of an “untoward incident” as defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act,
1989. This would be a case of accidental falling of any passenger from a
train carrying passengers.
11. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Balu Narayan Gawale & Anr. Vs. Union of India,
1
represented by the General Manager Central Railway wherein this Court
was confronted with a substantially similar issue. Paragraph 14 of the said
decision is as under :-
“14. As the case of the Respondent was that the deceased was knocked down
by the train while crossing the railway track, the burden was upon the
Respondents to lead evidence to prove the said fact. Despite being aware of
the exact position when the body of the deceased was found, in the memo
issued by the Station Master to the on duty GRP it is stated that the deceased
was knocked down by some unknown down local train. It is surprising that it
is claimed that deceased was knocked down by some unknown down local
train as the deceased was found at a particular spot and the railways could
have easily identified the train which would be passing through the particular
spot at that particular time. Admittedly, Railways have not examined any
official neither the motorman of the alleged train which has knocked down the
deceased in order to prove that the deceased was crossing the railway track.
The Appellants have discharged the initial burden of proving that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket, had boarded the train at the
relevant time and due to heavy over crowding of the train fell out of the train
and had expired as a result of injuries sustained. The provisions of Section 124
of the Railways Act provides for compensation on account of any untoward
incident except in the event of contingencies mentioned in clauses (a) to (e).
The exceptions carved out in the said Section has not been established in the
present case. The impugned judgment is therefore perverse for the reason that
the Tribunal has failed to notice that the inquest panchanama specifically
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2318
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 18:36:04 :::
ppn 5 44.fa-490.16.doc
mentioned that the ticket was found in the wallet of the deceased and
secondly, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Respondents have not
examined any witnesses and thus the case of the Appellants was established by
the evidence which has been produced on record.”
12. This Court also draws support from the decision in the case of Smt.
2
Jaishree Vijay Gondake & Ors. Vs. Union of India wherein this Court has
held as under :-
“ 8. If a person is hit by a moving train, then it is not only the duty of the Motor Man,
but it is his obligation that he should inform the Station Master of immediate next
station, so that the Station Master can go to the incident place. In this case, there is
no such statement on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal that the Motor
Man informed the Station Master that a person has been hit while he was driving the
train. Secondly, there is no material on record to show that there was an entry and
exit on the sides of the railway line, by which the persons can enter the railway line
from one side to cross over to other side. Therefore, the submission made that the
deceased was hit by moving train while crossing the railway line also cannot be
accepted. ”
13. In view of above, the appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. The father of the deceased has died while the appeal was pending
and therefore, the only claimant now, who survives, is the mother of the
deceased who is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. No interest
is awarded.
15. The respondent is directed to remit the amount to the bank account
of the claimant i.e. the mother of the deceased within eight weeks of the
claimant making an application.
16. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)
2 F.A. No.37 of 2019 decided on 7 October 2025
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 18:36:04 :::