SHYAMAL SACHIN SALVI vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Case type
- First Appeal
- Decided on
- 17-03-2026
2026:BHC-AS:13217
HMK 36. FA-619-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2018
Digitally
signed by
SAYYED
SAEED ALI
AHMED ALI
Date:
2026.03.18
10:25:32
+0530
SAYYED
SAEED
ALI
AHMED
ALI
Rajani Ravindra Pol d/o.
Deceased Shyamal Sachin Salvi ….Appellant
Versus
Union Of India,
Through The General Manager,
Western Railway .…Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Vaneet Khosla for the Appellant.
Mr. Pratik Irpatgire for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
th
DATED : 17 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT :
st
1. This appeal challenges an order dated 31 January, 2018 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), whereby, the claim made by the
appellant came to be rejected on solitary ground that same does not
constitute “untoward incident”, as defined by the Railways Act, 1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Irpatgire for the Railways-respondent.
3. The appellant is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased on
th
28 December, 2010 was travelling from Nallasopara to Santacruz with a
valid season pass. The deceased was working as a housemaid. At around
6.30 a.m. - 7.00 a.m., the deceased lost her life on account of fall from the
train and, therefore, the application was made before the Tribunal for
1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 10:55:39 :::
HMK 36. FA-619-2018.doc
compensation.
4. The Tribunal with respect to “bonafide passenger” gave finding in
favour of the appellant but with respect to “untoward incident”, relied upon
the documents prepared by the railway authorities and after examining the
nature of injuries came to a conclusion that the deceased was knocked
down while crossing the track and, therefore, the claim was rejected.
5. The respondents are not in appeal against the findings given by the
Tribunal in favour of the appellant.
th
6. The Station Master’s Report dated 28 December, 2010 does not give
any reason for the death, though various reasons are set out including “hit
by unknown train while trespassing”. This is the first report prepared after
the incident and if the appellant was trespassing, the Station Master would
have stated so in his report, but on the contrary, the Station Master has
stated “not known”.
7. The inquest panchnama is prepared while the body was lying in the
hospital. The panchas have stated that the deceased must have died due to
being hit by some unknown local train. Admittedly, the panchas were not
the eye witnesses at the time when the incident happened. Therefore, any
opinion expressed by such panchas cannot be accepted.
8. The Police Report states that the deceased was crossing lane no. 4
and was hit by some unknown local train and died on the spot. This is
stated to have been recorded in the Station Master’s written memo. I have
already observed above that, in the Station Master’s Report, there is no such
reason given and, therefore, report prepared by the police is on incorrect
basis, which does not find its place in the Station Master’s Report.
2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 10:55:39 :::
HMK 36. FA-619-2018.doc
9. In the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report it is stated and rightly so
that, the Station Master did not mention any cause of incident in the memo,
but in the inquest panchnama it is stated that the deceased was knocked
down by unknown local train. I have already opined my views on both
these documents above.
10. Furthermore, Divisional Railway Manager’s Report is based on
incorrect facts, which were never recorded in the Station Master’s Report
and, therefore, the conclusion that the deceased died on account of
negligence, carelessness and trespassing cannot be accepted.
11. In the report prepared by the Station Master and addressed to the
th
General Railway Police (GRP) on 17 August, 2012 it is stated that, the
reason of the untoward incident is not known. In Form No.2 annexed
thereto, there is no indication of the case made out of trespassing,
negligence, or criminal act.
12. The reasoning of the tribunal based on the nature of injury for
coming to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of trespassing
or crossing the railway line, cannot be sustained. The respondent-railways
have not examined any witness, including a medical expert. The Tribunal is
not an expert body for coming to a certain conclusion based on the nature
of the injury. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding on this aspect cannot be
sustained.
13. The reliance placed by the respondent on Section 147 read with
Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot be accepted. Section 147 provides
that a person enters upon any part of a railway without lawful authority, or
having lawfully entered upon, misuses such property, or refuses to leave. In
this case, in none of the report it is stated that the deceased entered into
3 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 10:55:39 :::
HMK 36. FA-619-2018.doc
any part of the railway without lawful authority or misused the property or
refused to leave. There is no eyewitness of crossing the tracks. Therefore,
provisions of section 124A(c) of exclusion on account of “own criminal act”
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. For all the above reasons, the impugned order to the extent
challenged by the appellant herein is set aside and the findings of the
Tribunal on “untoward incident” is reversed. The deceased died on account
of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers with a bonafide ticket.
and, therefore, the claim is required to be granted.
15. The appellant to make an application to the respondent authority
along with the present order for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- @ 6% per
annum from the date of accident till the date of realisation along with the
bank details. The respondent to remit the amount within 12 weeks from
receiving the said application. The aggregate amount of compensation,
along with interest is subject to cap of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
16. When the appeal was filed, the original claimant/appellant was
unmarried. Subsequently, she was married and the amendment has been
th
carried out in present appeal pursuant to order of this court dated 17
October, 2023. The respondent authorities to consider the married name of
the appellant for grant of compensation.
17. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 10:55:39 :::