Bhaskar Kandh Panda And Anr. vs Union Of India Through The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010358762021
1 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.838 OF 2022
1. Bhaskar Kandh Panda, Age 52 years,
2. Prafulla @ Pranita Bhaskar Panda, Age 48 years,
Both r/at Pratibha Niwas Chawl No.1,
Kajupada Pipe Line, Kurla (W),
Mumbai-400072. Appellants
Versus
Union of India through
The General Manager, Central Railway,
CST, Mumbai-400001. Respondent
_______
Mr.S.V.Chaugule for Appellant.
Mr.Niranjan Shimpi with Ms.Bhagyashri Waghmare for Respondent
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE , J.
th
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 9 October 2026
th
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 16 October 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The present First Appeal is filed by the Appellants being aggrieved by
th
the Judgment and Order dated 5 March 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the
nd
“impugned judgment and order”) passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, 2
Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal’) in Claim Application
No. OA (II u)/MCC/0957/2015 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987, whereby the following order came to be passed:
“ORDER
The claim application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.”
Digitally signed by
MANISH
SURESHRAO
THATTE
Date: 2026.10.16
15:35:06 +0530
MANISH
SURESHRAO
THATTE
2. Brief facts are as follows:
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
2 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
(i) Appellant No.1 is the father of the deceased and Appellant
st
No.2 is the mother of the deceased. Sometime around 1 September 2015,
Mr.Sandeep P.Panda (deceased), the son of the Appellants, met with an accident at
approximately 20.30 hours while travelling from Belapur to Chhatrapati Shivaji
Maharaj Terminus (‘CSMT’) Railway Station. The deceased was travelling to
Belapur for his personal work as per Appellants’ contention and it is further their
contention that the deceased was travelling from Belapur to CSMT to meet his
friend. When the deceased reached Belapur Railway Station and boarded the train
towards CSMT, the deceased fell down from the train as he received a push in the
crowded train. It is the Appellants’ contention that railway ticket for the journey
between Kurla and Belapur had been recovered in the Inquest Panchanama as the
wallet of the deceased was found on his body, however, the ticket from Belapur to
CSMT had not been recovered.
(ii) The Appellants filed Claim Application No. OA (II
u)/MCC/0957/2015 before the Tribunal claiming for compensation on account of
the accidental death of the deceased by falling of the train between Kurla and
Chunabhatti Railway Station. The deceased after the fall was taken to Sion
Hospital and the said hospital certified that the death of the deceased was due to
the injury to skull;
(iii) Before the Tribunal, the Appellants filed photocopies of
Station Master (S.M.) Memo, police report, inquest panchanama, cause of death
certificate, statement of Appellant No.1, ration card, etc;
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
3 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
(iv) The Respondent Central Railway (`Respondent-Railways’) on
the other hand filed Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report along with certain
documents.
th
3. Before the Tribunal, the affidavit of Appellant No.1 dated 19
December 2019 was filed wherein the Appellant No.1 deposed that the deceased
was his son and was residing at Chembur (East) along with his mother (Appellant
No.2). He also deposed that the deceased was doing labour job and was earning
Rs.3,000/- per month and was paying Rs.2,000/- to the Appellants to meet the
st
household expenses. On 1 September 2015, the deceased left his house at
Chembur around 15.30 hours with a view to go to Kurla for his personal work and
thereafter visited their home at Kajupada, Kurla (West). It is further deposed that
thereafter the deceased decided to go to Belapur for his work and once he reached
Kurla, he purchased ticket No.AB-08429563 to enable him to travel from Kurla to
Belapur. However, after his work was completed at about 20.00 hours, the
deceased decided to go to CSMT to meet his friend and purchased railway ticket
for the journey between Belapur and CSMT. The deceased thereafter boarded the
local train going towards CSMT. Appellant No.1 deposed that the said train was
over crowded. The deceased was standing near the door in the compartment and
when the train reached between Kurla and Chunabhatti railway stations, after
being pushed forcefully, the deceased fell down from the train and sustained
injuries which caused his death. Appellant No.1 submitted that though the
deceased was travelling with a valid railway ticket for journey between Belapur and
CSMT, the same was lost when the deceased fell down from the train. Similar
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
4 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
submissions were made before the Tribunal and considering that the deceased had
fallen down from the train, it was submitted that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and on account of an untoward incident, the deceased had died and
hence was entitled for compensation.
4. The Respondent-Railways, however, denied the contention of the
Appellants before the Tribunal and submitted that as per the DRM report, it was
very clear that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of his own criminal
act and negligence and that the Respondent-Railways were not responsible for the
same.
5. On hearing both the parties and after cross-examination of the
Appellant No.1, the Tribunal framed following issues :
I) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the
time of accident?
II) Whether the deceased suffered injuries & died in an untoward incident while
travelling in the train in question?
III) Whether the Respondent is protected under the exceptional clause of
Sec.124(A) of the Railway Act and not liable to pay any compensation?
IV) Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?
V) Relief ?
6. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal answered certain
issues in favour of the Appellants and certain issues against the Appellants.
However, ultimately the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the
Appellants on the ground that since only one railway ticket was found on the body
of the deceased, for his journey from Kurla to Belapur, and the ticket for the
journey between Belapur and CSMT railway station was not recovered from the
possession of the deceased, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
5 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
was not a bona fide passenger and on the basis of the aforesaid held that the
Appellants were not entitled for the compensation. The Tribunal, however, on a
perusal of the police report, inquest panchanama and DRM report came to the
conclusion that the deceased had fallen down from an unknown railway between
st
Kurla and Chunabhatti railway stations and succumbed to his injuries on 1
September 2015 in an untoward incident.
7. In view of the aforesaid findings following points arise for
determination in the present appeal:
a) Whether the Appellants have proved that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger travelling with a valid railway ticket and hence
was entitled to make a claim before the Tribunal?
b) Whether the deceased died due to fall from the train or on
account of his criminal act and negligence, and hence was not liable to
be compensated?
c) Whether the deceased had died by an untoward incident and
therefore liable to be compensated by the Respondent-Railways?
d) Whether the exceptions provided in Section 124(A) of The
Railways Act, 1989 are applicable to the present case?
e) What reliefs the Appellants are entitled to?
8. Mr.Chaugule, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellants and
Mr.Shimpi appeared on behalf of the Respondent Railways. Mr.Chaugule learned
counsel appearing on behalf the Appellants submitted that in the facts of the
present case, considering the deposition made by the Appellant No.1 in the
affidavit, it was quite clear that the railway ticket between Kurla and Belapur had
been recovered from the body of deceased, as recorded in the inquest panchanama,
from the wallet of the deceased which was found on the body of the deceased.
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
6 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
However, the ticket from Belapur to CSMT had not been recovered. He submitted
that considering that the ticket had been found for an ongoing journey from the
body of the deceased and an affidavit to that effect was filed by the Appellant No.1,
the initial burden was discharged by the Appellants and onus was on the
Respondent-Railways to rebut the same in the facts of the present case. He also
1
sought to place reliance on the decision in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi to
contend that in the facts of the present case, the issue is squarely covered by the
aforesaid decision wherein it was held that mere absence of a ticket on the body of
the deceased would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and initial burden will be on the claimants, which can be discharged by
filing an affidavit of relevant facts and the burden will thereafter shift on the
Railways and the issue could thereafter be decided on the attending circumstances.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that under Rule 7
of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules,
2003 (“Rules of 2003” for short) which were relevant rules applicable at that time,
the mandate was that the investigating authority had to prepare a Jamatalashi
report and the said report had not been prepared. He submitted that the Rule
stipulates the investigating agency to visit the site of the incident, to check for the
belongings of the deceased and it also required the investigating agency to make
inquiries with the people who handled the body of the deceased for articles of the
deceased. He further submitted that, in the facts of the case, the same had not been
done. He also submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the deceased was a bona fide
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
7 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
passenger, and compensation ought to have been paid to the Appellants. He also
st
submitted that the death of the deceased had taken place on 1 September 2015,
however, the DRM report was prepared in 2019, after a gap of almost four years,
thereby showing utter disregard by the Respondent Railways to follow the due
process of law. He further submitted that post amendment of the Rules, the
amount of compensation payable in case of death of a passenger as a result of an
untoward incident, has been enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- and by
applying the principles in Rina Devi (supra) if the amount calculated is less than
the amount prescribed on the date of impugned judgment and order of the
Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled for the higher of the two amounts. He
st
submitted that in the facts of the present case, the incident had occurred on 1
September 2015. Applying the principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra) and the
amended Rules, the Appellants would be entitled for the compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/-.
10. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways submitted that
present appeal deserves to be dismissed, inasmuch as, the impugned judgment and
order was perfectly valid and reasoned, and therefore, the same need not be
interfered in the present appeal. He further submitted that the Appellants had for
the first time in the present appeal raised the ground of non-observance of the
Rules, which was nothing but an afterthought and hence the same should not be
entertained in the present appeal. He submitted that on the basis of the deposition
of Appellant No.1, it could be inferred that the entire case of the Appellants was
concocted, frivolous and bogus, inasmuch as, considering that the Appellants and
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
8 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
the deceased were the residents of Chembur (East), the deceased would have gone
to Chembur and not from Kurla station for purchasing the railway ticket to travel
to Belapur. He submitted that even otherwise, an ordinary person like the
deceased would have purchased the ticket for both way journey and considering
that no return ticket was found on the body of the deceased, the finding of the
Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, was a correct finding. He
nd
further submitted that the statement of Appellant No.1 dated 2 September 2015
th
would have more veracity as opposed to the affidavit of Appellant No.1 dated 19
nd
December 2019, inasmuch as, the statement of the Appellant No.1 dated 2
September 2015 was taken immediately after the death of the deceased and the
affidavit was merely an afterthought which was in line with what was prayed for in
the Original Application. He also submitted that admittedly there was no
eyewitness of the travel of the deceased or to the untoward incident and therefore,
the inquest panchanama has no evidentiary value as there is no contemporaneous
documentary material forming part of the record. He further submitted that even
the Government Railway Police (GRP) report and the S.M. memo show that the
deceased had fallen down from the train and the inquest panchanama without any
evidence has stated that the deceased had fallen down. He further submitted that
the nature of injuries of the deceased referred in the panchanama are of such nature
that they could not have been sustained by a fall from the train. He submitted that
once the recovery of all articles is found from the body of the deceased, then it was
not for the Respondent-Railways to establish as to why return journey ticket from
Belapur to CSMT was not recovered. He sought to distinguish the decision in the
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
9 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
case of Rina Devi (supra) on the ground that the said decision categorically stated
that each case had to be dealt on its own merits and on the facts available in the
case. He submitted that the DRM report was very categorical on placing on record
that the deceased was travelling and standing near the door which was a restricted
area and that was impermissible and hence on account of negligence on the part of
the deceased, the deceased had sustained injuries. In view thereof, learned counsel
for Respondent-Railways has submitted that the Respondent-Railways were not
responsible to pay the compensation and hence the impugned judgment and order
ought to be upheld.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways also sought to place
reliance on the decisions in the case of Meenadevi Jaiprakash Gupta & Ors. Vs.
2 3
Union of India , Shri. Sapdu Arjun Dhiuvare & Anr. Vs. Union of India and
4
Bikash Choudhury Vs. Union of India, represented by the General Manager in
support of the submissions made by him.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset the issues
which need to be decided in the present case are threefold: -
(I) Whether the Appellants are eligible for the compensation?
(II) Whether the case of the death of the deceased was on account
of his own negligence?
th
2 Judgment dated 8 June 2022 in First Appeal No. 290 of 2021
th
3 Judgment dated 9 April 2025 in First Appeal No. 1407 of 2022
4 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1725
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
10 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
(III) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger though
journey ticket in respect of only one leg of travel from Kurla to Belapur was found
on the body of the deceased and the ticket for the other leg of travel i.e. from
Belapur to CSMT was not found on the body of the deceased?
13. To decide the aforesaid issues, the Tribunal on examination of
documents and evidence has come to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased
was not a bona fide passenger only on the basis of deceased not having a ticket at
the time of his death and thereby holding that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger. The contradictions in the findings of the Tribunal are clear on perusal
of the impugned judgment and order itself wherein the Tribunal on the basis of
police report, inquest panchanama and DRM report, has come to the conclusion
that it has been proved beyond doubt that the deceased had fallen down from an
unknown train between Kurla and Chunabhatti railway station at K.M.No.14/10
st
and succumbed to his injuries on 1 September 2015 in an untoward incident.
However, only on account of one-way ticket not being found on the body of the
deceased, had held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger for the
compensation as prayed for. This contradiction, to my mind, goes to the very root
of the matter considering that on one hand the Tribunal has accepted that the
deceased did die on account of an untoward incident of falling from the train, but
held him to be “not a bona fide passenger” as the Railway ticket for one way
journey was not found on his body. In fact, the Tribunal records on perusal of
inquest panchanama, that the GRP mentioned recovery of one way ticket bearing
st
No.AB-08429563 dated 1 September 2015 from Kurla to Belapur railway station,
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
11 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
and no railway ticket from Belapur to CSMT railway station was found on the body
of the deceased, and hence the deceased is not a bona fide passenger is a finding
which to my mind, deserves to be interfered with. The aforesaid finding of the
Tribunal is in the teeth of the decision in Rina Devi (supra), wherein it has been
categorically held that even in the cases where there is absence of a railway ticket,
the same will not negate the claim of a bona fide passenger. The aforesaid decision
also goes to hold that initial burden will be on the claimants which can be
discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and the burden will then shift
on the Respondent-Railways and the issue could be decided on the facts shown or
attending circumstances. The relevant paragraphs of Rina Devi (supra) are
reproduced below :
“Re: (iii) Burden of proof when body found on railway premises - Definition of
passenger
26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the
statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a "passenger". In
Raj Kumaril3 referring to the scheme of the Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that
since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the Railway
Administration to prove that passenger was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway
Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. The 1989
Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an
inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be
presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation.
However, the Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh25 held that initial onus to
prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However,
such onus can shift on the Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the
claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the
deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a
ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi
High Court observed as follows : (Gurcharan Singh case?, SCC OnLine Del para 4)
"4. ... (ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with
the appellant claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of
a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the
facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on
the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which
has to be discharged is always on the Railways and not on the claimants. I cannot
agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a
deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no such negative onus is placed
upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
12 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
Act and the Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in
the facts of the particular case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case
where the deceased may have died at a place where he could not have otherwise
been unless he was travelling in the train and in such circumstances depending
on the facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the
deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of incident of death can
easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take note of a judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Pyar Singh v. Union of India& which holds that it is
the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to this
view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the ratio of the case of
Leelamma."
27. In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi26 the same view was taken by a Single Judge
of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act as follows :
(SCC OnLine AP para 24)
"24. So, from Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the
applicants, having come to the court asserting some facts, must prove that the
death of the deceased had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death
occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a
passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in
an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death,
the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial burden
of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by
the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of
AW 1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court may
presume that the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if
produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best evidence
rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts, requires that the best
evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be produced.
Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse
presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs
the availability of such an evidence. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the
material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no
grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal."
28. In Kamrunnissa, from the circumstances appearing in that case it was held
that there was no evidence that the deceased had purchased the ticket. In the given
fact situation of that case, this Court inferred that it was not a case of "untoward
incident" but a case of run over. It was observed:
"7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut
into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further
indicates, that the intestine of th deceased had come out of the body. The above
factual position reveals that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach.
This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the
intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to
accept that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train.
3. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of Paras VII and
VIII extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals that besides a pocket diary
having been found from the person o the deceased a few telephone numbers
were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other
article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities,
namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for
boarding the train at the Devangere Railway Station."
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
13 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not
be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which
claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with
such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide
passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the
issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will
have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position
in this regard will stand explained accordingly.
Re: (iv) Rate of interest
30. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi held that
rate of interest has to be @ 6% from the date of application till the date of the award
and 9% thereafter and 9% rate o interest was awarded from the date of application in
Mohamadi20, rate of interest has to be reasonable rate on a par with accident claim
cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest
can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways
arises up to the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position
in this regard is on a par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. I am further of the view that in the facts of the present case, the
aforesaid burden was discharged by the Appellants by filing an affidavit showing
the presence of valid ticket for one way travel from Kurla to Belapur and further
even in the cross-examination of Appellant No.1, he has submitted that it was
incorrect to suggest that the deceased did not have valid ticket for his travel on that
day.
15. I am further of the view that the Respondent-Railways have not
brought on record anything except the DRM report to prove that the deceased was
standing at the door which was impermissible and it was on account of that, that
the deceased had fallen down from the train due to which death of the deceased
had occurred. Besides the aforesaid DRM report, there were no eyewitnesses which
were brought on record to suggest that the deceased was in fact standing at the
door of the running train which was impermissible and his death was caused
primarily due to his negligence. I am, therefore, inclined to reject the submission
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
14 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
made by learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways that the death of the
deceased was on account of his own negligence and that the deceased was travelling
at the door which was impermissible. I am further of the view that the inquest
panchanama refers to recovery of railway ticket bearing No.AB-08429563, dated
st
1 September 2015 from Kurla to Belapur, and though there was no ticket for the
journey between Belapur to CSMT, which has been admitted by the Appellants, in
view of the clear decision in Rina Devi (supra), the same could not be made a
ground to hold that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and consequently
deny the compensation.
16. I am further of the view that the Respondent-Railways have not
brought on record or made out a case that, the Appellants fall within the exceptions
of Section 124(A) of The Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Railways Act”), and therefore the compensation needs to be denied to them. I am,
therefore, of the view that reliance by learned counsel for the Appellants on the
5
case of Rina Devi (supra), Lata vs. Union of India and the decision of this Court in
6
Moulali N Hubballi & Anr vs. Union of India are apposite to the facts of the
present case. Insofar as reliance by learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways
on Meenadevi Jaiprakash Gupta (supra), Shri. Sapdu Arjun Dhiuvare (supra) and
Bikash Choudhury (supra), the same would not be apposite to the case, inasmuch
as, they have been rendered in different fact pattern, which is discussed as follows:
(i) The reliance placed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
5 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
6 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 7100
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
15 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
Respondent-Railways on the decision in Meenadevi Jaiprakash Gupta (supra) is
misplaced and distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the Tribunal held that the
incident did not constitute an untoward incident. Further, no railway ticket was
found on the person of the deceased therein. The nature of the injuries was also
examined by the Tribunal, which led to the conclusion that the deceased therein
had sustained the injuries upon being knocked down by a moving train. On the
contrary, in the present case, the Tribunal itself held that the incident was an
untoward incident. Moreover, a valid single-journey (one-way) ticket was recovered
from the deceased. The nature of the injuries was not examined in the manner
undertaken in Meenadevi Jaiprakash Gupta (supra). Further, the mandatory
procedure of Jamatalashi report as contemplated under the Rules of 2003 was not
followed. Additionally, the DRM report was submitted after an inordinate delay of
four years. In view of these material factual distinctions, the decision in Meenadevi
Jaiprakash Gupta (supra) is clearly distinguishable and cannot be relied upon to
determine the present case.
(ii) Further, the reliance placed by learned counsel on behalf of the
Respondent-Railways on the decision in Shri Sapdu Arjun Dhiuvare (supra) is not
apposite to facts of the present case, inasmuch as the said decision is distinguishable
on material facts. In Shri Sapdu Arjun Dhiuvare (supra), the Tribunal had returned
a finding that no untoward incident had occurred. The Railways had also adduced
evidence before the Tribunal. Further, the testimony of AW-1 and AW-2 was found
to be unreliable on account of material inconsistencies in their respective
statements. It was also noticed that the name of the witness subsequently examined
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
16 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
as AW-2 did not find mention in the claim application and came to be known only
after a lapse of eight to nine years from the date of the incident. However, in the
facts of the present case, no evidence was adduced by the Respondent-Railways to
substantiate its case. On the contrary, the Tribunal itself returned a finding that the
incident constituted an untoward incident. Further, a single-journey ticket was
recovered from the deceased, and the burden resting upon the Appellants was
discharged by placing an affidavit on record.
(iii) Learned counsel on behalf of Respondent-Railway also has placed his
reliance on the case of Bikash Choudhury (supra) which is not apposite to the facts
of the present case, inasmuch as, in the said case the inquest panchanama was never
prepared and also the claim of the Appellant therein was that the deceased had
fallen from the train and had been run over by the same train, which was an
explanation found not reasonable by the Tribunal and upheld by the Court.
However, in the facts of the present case the inquest panchanama was very much
on record and the Tribunal itself had held that the deceased died on account of fall
from the train and that was an untoward incident as defined in the Railways Act.
The case of Bikash Choudhary (supra) is therefore distinguishable on the facts of
the present case.
17. I am also of the view that none of the above decisions help the
Respondent Railways to advance their case further. Considering the aforesaid
overall facts and considering the settled position of law, the impugned judgment
and order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside, and the First Appeal deserves
to be allowed. Considering the evidence led in the present proceedings and the law
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
17 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, interference is required
in the impugned judgment and order. The points for determination are answered
accordingly.
18. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellants are father and mother of the
deceased and hence are dependents under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act.
Further, it is well settled that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and
hence it should receive a liberal interpretation and whenever there are two views
possible, a construction in favour of the beneficiary of the legislation should be
preferred and the real intent of the legislation ought to be sought. Considering the
aforesaid beneficial nature of the legislation, also to my mind, the Tribunal has
taken a narrow and erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act
and deprived the family members of the deceased from the beneficial legislation.
19. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the
Appellant, that considering the amendment effected in the Rules by the
Amendment Rules of 2016, the amount of compensation to be payable on death of
the passenger which has been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- is
concerned, the ratio as laid down in Rina Devi (supra) would be applicable to the
facts of the present case, and in view thereof, considering that the accident had
st
taken place on 1 September 2015 and the impugned judgment and order was
th
passed on 5 March 2020, which was after the amendment to the Rules, applying
the principles laid down in paragraph 30 of Rina Devi (supra), the compensation
payable would be Rs.8,00,000/-. However, considering the interest from the date
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
18 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
of accident till today, on Rs. 4,00,000/- at the rate of 9%, it would be
Rs.8,00,438.36/-.
20. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Rina Devi (supra) in paragraph
No. 30 has held that, interest will be payable from the date of the accident. Having
regard to the legal position, which is held to be on par with claims under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, interest @9% p.a. (i.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. or Rs.3,000/- per
month) appears to be just and reasonable. It is well settled that Section 124A of the
Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (Rules of 1990) are framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by the Railways Act.
21. Taking into account the date of the impugned judgment and order i.e.
th
5 March 2020, which is subsequent to the amendment to the said Rules of 1990
in the year 2016 (whereby the compensation payable for death has been revised to
Rs.8,00,000/-), paragraph 30 of Rina Devi (supra) would apply. Accordingly, a
comparison between the two amounts is required to be made, and the higher of the
two amounts is liable to be awarded, this being under a beneficial piece of
st
legislation. The date of the incident is 1 September 2015 and the amount as
compensation as claimed on that date was Rs.4,00,000/-. The impugned judgment
th
and order was passed by the Tribunal on 5 March 2020. By that time, the
compensation payable pursuant to the amended Rules of 2016 was enhanced to
Rs.8,00,000/-. However, considering the interest from the date of accident till
today on Rs.4,00,000/-, @ 9% would be Rs.4,00,438.36/-. The total amount as of
today would be Rs.8,00,438.36/-. As per the ratio of the Judgment of Rina Devi
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
19 of 19 904.FA.838.2022.DOC
(supra), the higher of the two amounts is Rs.8,00,438.36/-. Therefore, the
following orders:-
ORDER
th
(i) First appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 5
March 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) Claim of the Appellant stands allowed of an amount of
Rs.8,00,438.36/- and as the Appellants are the father and mother of the deceased
i.e. the dependents the said amount be equally distributed between them.
(iii) The said amount of Rs.8,00,438.36/- be deposited by the Railways in
the bank account of the Appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date
the Appellant furnishes the bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Central
Railway.
(iv) If the said amount is not deposited in their bank accounts within a
stipulated period. It will carry further interest at rate of 9% per annum till the time
of payment.
(v) First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Interim application(s) if
any, also stands disposed of.
( AARTI SATHE , J.)
M.S.Thatte
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)