MRS. CORINNA VALENTINA D'SOUZA AND ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANGAER, WESTER RAILWAY
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Case type
- First Appeal
- Decided on
- 18-03-2026
2026:BHC-AS:13426
HMK 36. FA-1232-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2014
Digitally
signed by
SAYYED
SAEED ALI
AHMED ALI
Date:
2026.03.18
18:25:07
+0530
1. Corinna Valentina D'souza,
Age 33 years, Widow of the deceased.
SAYYED
SAEED
ALI
AHMED
ALI
2. Pearl Valentina D’Souza,
Age 2 years, Daughter of the deceased.
3. Francis Xavier D’Souza,
Age 56 years, Father of the deceased.
4. Annnie Francis D’Souza,
Mother of the deceased. ….Appellants
Versus
Union Of India,
Through The General Manager,
Western Railway .…Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Avadhut Bidaye a/w. Mr. Aditya Kode i/by Bidaye & Associates for the
Appellants.
Mr. Rajesh G. Singh, Senior Advocate for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
th
DATED : 18 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants, challenging the order
th
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 28 February, 2014 whereby,
the application for compensation on account of death of Mr. Valentine
D’Souza to be rejected on the ground that various records prove that it is a
runover case and the incident occurred due to trespassing i.e. knocked
down by unknown train and, therefore, it is not an “untoward incident”.
1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 18:50:37 :::
HMK 36. FA-1232-2014.doc
2. Insofar as the finding with respect to “bonafide passenger” is
concerned, same is in favour of the appellant and has not been challenged.
Insofar as the finding on dependency is concerned, the reasoning is in
favour of the appellant and has not been challenged. However, in
concluding paragraph, there appears to be a typo error, wherein, it is stated
that the relationship has not been established, though in the previous
paragraph, the reasoning is in favour of the appellant. The said typo error is
now directed to be corrected and the relationship is also proved and
established.
3. The deceased was staying at Naigaon and was employed at Dadar in
a Watch Showroom, Rolex Company. It is the case of the appellant that the
deceased was travelling from Naigaon to Dadar for his job when they
received a call that the deceased has met with an accident. The first class
season ticket was found on search and the head was cut from the body. It
was on this backdrop that the application came to be filed before the
Tribunal, which was rejected and, therefore, the present appeal is filed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
council for the respondent.
5. The only issue which arises for my consideration is whether, it is a
case of “untoward incident” or it is a case of “trespassing”. The wife of the
deceased stepped into the witness box and led the evidence, wherein, in
the examination-in-chief, she has set out the routine and also that on
th
18 March, 2011, the deceased in the afternoon left the residence for his
work and reached Naigaon Railway Station to board the local train for
Dadar. In the cross-examination same has not been rebutted or found to be
incorrect.
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 18:50:37 :::
HMK 36. FA-1232-2014.doc
6. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the deceased boarding the train.
In my view, there cannot be any evidence of boarding a train unless the
deceased was accompanied by a co-passenger or by CCTV footage. In this
case, none of the two exists. Therefore, to call upon the applicants to prove
that the deceased was boarding the train would be imposing impossible
onerous burden. This has to be examined in the context of the affidavit of
the wife, which has been set out by me earlier. Therefore, the contention
that there is no proof of boarding the train cannot be accepted.
7. The incident happened between Naigaon and Bhayander Railway
Station. There is no eyewitness to the incident, which shows that the
deceased was crossing the railway track and was a trespasser. In the
absence of any eyewitness the contention of trespassing, cannot be
accepted.
8. Insofar as the submission of the head being separated from the body
is concerned, it is possible that the deceased may have fallen and the body
must have been cut into pieces by coming under the wheels of the same
train or by a train coming from the other side after the deceased fell down.
In such a case, when there is no evidence to show how the deceased died
and there is no eyewitness to show that the deceased was crossing the
railway track, while construing the social welfare legislation and
considering the background of the deceased, the claim of the incident not
being “untoward incident” or it being “a trespasser” has to be rejected.
9. The Station Master's Report, which is the first document prepared
after the incident states reasons “not known”. The Station Master's Report
has not stated in this report that the deceased died because of trespassing.
In the inquest panchnama, the panchas have stated that they do not know
true reason how the person died, though they have stated that railway
3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 18:50:37 :::
HMK 36. FA-1232-2014.doc
dashed and the person died. These panchas were not the eyewitness to the
incident and they themselves are not sure about the cause of death.
10. The father of the deceased in his statement on the date of incident to
the police station has recorded the routine of his son. This statement
available at the first instance should be considered in favor of the appellant
for deciding this issue.
11. The Post-Mortem Report and the advance death certificate would
only show the nature of injury and cause of death, but not whether the
deceased died because of trespassing or crossing the railway track. Railways
have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was a trespasser or
was crossing the railway track before being hit by the unknown train. It is
also important to note that if the deceased was hit by a moving train, then
the Motormen or the Guard would have informed the Station Master of the
next station about somebody being knocked down by his train. This is not
the fact in the present case.
th
12. The investigation report is prepared on 17 January, 2012 which is
after almost after 09 to 10 months of the incident. This report is prepared
on the basis of the documents which are referred to herein above and
which were prepared on the date of the incident. The said report admits
that the Station Master has not mentioned any cause of incident, but the
police report mentions the deceased was knocked down by the unknown
train. I have already observed that the police report and the inquest
panchnama is not based on eyewitness of the incident and, therefore, to
come to a conclusion that the deceased died on account of trespassing
cannot be accepted.
13. In view of above, the finding of the Tribunal that the death occurred
4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 18:50:37 :::
HMK 36. FA-1232-2014.doc
not on account of “untoward incident”, but on account of “trespassing” is
reversed and the appeal is allowed to the extent challenged herein with a
modification on issue no. 3 as stated above.
14. The appellant to make an application to the respondent for grant of
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date
of accident till the date of payment subject to cap of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The
bank details of the appellant to be furnished to the respondent and the
respondent to remit the amount within 12 weeks from the date of the
appellant making application.
15. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 18:50:37 :::