Smt. Maya Banyappa (Ram) Nedgee And Anr. vs Union Of India, Through The General Manager
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010423202019
2026:BHC-AS:43176
4-FA-361-2020
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
NAMDEV
BARE
Date:
2026.10.23
14:38:38
+0530
VAIBHAV
NAMDEV
BARE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2020
Smt. Maya Banyappa (Ram) Nedgee And Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Union Of India, Through The General Manager ...Respondent
______
Mr. Mohan Rao, for the Appellants.
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Gautam Modanwal and Ms. Aarti Gupta, Ms. Vaishali
Barot, and Ms. Noorjahan Khan for the Respondent.
______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J
th
RESERVED ON : 13 AUGUST, 2026
nd
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The present First Appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 23 of
th
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and impugns an Order dated 29
March 2019 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (“ Tribunal ”),
has rejected the Application under Section 16(1), read with Section 13 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, filed by the Appellants seeking
1
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
compensation for the death of one Banyappa (Ram) Hanumantha Nedgee
deceased
(“ ”).
2. The Appellants are the wife and son of the deceased.
A brief background:
th
3. It is the case of the Appellants that on 11 January 2010, the deceased was
travelling by train from Ambernath to Badlapur when he accidentally fell
from the train and sustained severe head injuries, which proved fatal.
4. It was thus that the Appellants approached the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Mumbai, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
5. The Appellants' claim was resisted by the Respondents principally on the
ground that (i) the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and (ii) the
incident which led to the death of the deceased was not an untoward incident
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989
(“ Railways Act ”).
6. Accordingly, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:
2
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
“i) Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of the deceased
within the meaning of Sec. 123(b) of the Railways Act?”
ii) Whether the applicants prove that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant day?
iii) Whether the applicants prove that the death of the deceased had
occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim
application?
iv) To what order/relief?”
7. The Appellants examined two witnesses, i.e., Appellant No. 1, Mrs. Maya
Banyappa (“ AW-1 ”), as well as Mr. Dipak Bhiku Gaikwad (“ AW-2 ”), inter
alia, to establish that (i) the Appellants were the dependents of the deceased
as per Section 123(b) of the Railways Act (ii) the deceased was a bona-fide
passenger and (iii) that the deceased had passed away on account of an
untoward incident.
8. The Appellants also relied upon various documents, including the Station
Master’s Memo (“ SM Memo ”), Inquest Panchanama, Police Report, Post-
Mortem Report and the Death Certificate of the deceased, in support of their
3
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
th
claim that the deceased met with an untoward incident on 11 January 2010
which resulted in his death.
9. The Tribunal, having answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, then proceeded
to answer the remaining Issue Nos. 2 and 3 in the negative.
10. Hence the present Appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:
11. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted
that the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger was established by
the evidence of AW-2. He submitted that AW-2 was an eyewitness who had
seen the deceased at the railway station and had specifically deposed that the
deceased had purchased a ticket before boarding the train. He was then at
pains to point out that the evidence of AW-2 on this crucial aspect had not
been challenged in cross-examination, nor had the Respondent led any
evidence in support of its case.
12. Mr. Rao submitted that the Tribunal had gravely erred in placing reliance
upon the Police Report, Inquest Panchanama and SM Memo to conclude that
4
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger merely because no railway ticket
was found on his person after the accident. He submitted that the absence of
the ticket on the deceased’s body could not, by itself, establish that the
deceased had not purchased a ticket, particularly when there was direct
evidence of AW-2 that the deceased had purchased a ticket on the date of
the accident.
13. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union
1
of India v. Rina Devi he submitted that the mere absence of a railway ticket
from the body of the deceased was not, by itself, conclusive that the deceased
was not a bona fide passenger. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had held that while the initial burden lies upon the claimant to
establish the claim of bona fide traveller, this burden could be discharged by
filing an affidavit or by placing other relevant material on record, and once
this initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts upon the Railways, and
the question of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger is to be
1
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
5
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
determined on the basis of the facts and attending circumstances of each
case.
14. In the present case, he submitted that the Appellants had discharged this
initial burden by leading the evidence of AW-2, who had specifically
deposed to the fact that the deceased had purchased a railway ticket prior to
the accident. He submitted that this evidence was not challenged and
therefore remained unimpeached. He also submitted that the Respondent-
Railways had not led any evidence to establish anything to the contrary. He
therefore submitted that the Respondent could not have, on the basis that no
ticket was found on the deceased, held that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger.
15. Mr. Rao further submitted that the Tribunal had also erred in holding that
the incident was not an “untoward incident” on the ground that the Police
Report recorded that the deceased was knocked down by the S/38 Local
Train while trespassing on the railway tracks. He submitted that the
Respondent had not produced any material or led any evidence to establish
6
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
that the deceased was trespassing at the time of the incident. He submitted
that the Respondent had not even pleaded before the Tribunal that the
deceased was a trespasser or that the incident was otherwise excluded from
the scope of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
16. Mr. Rao therefore submitted that, in the absence of any specific pleading
and any positive evidence to establish that the deceased was trespassing, the
Tribunal ought not to have accepted such a defence or relied upon the same
for rejecting the Appellants’ claim. He further submitted that the SM Memo
relied upon by the Tribunal merely contained information recorded after the
incident and that none of the railway officials who prepared the said
document had actually witnessed the accident. Consequently, the SM Memo
could not be treated as conclusive evidence of how the accident occurred.
17. Mr. Rao also submitted that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act to the facts of the present case. He submitted
that the Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the
circumstances in which the deceased sustained the fatal injuries and had
7
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
incorrectly treated the incident as falling outside the statutory definition of
an “untoward incident”.
18.
He then placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2
Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India , to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had observed that a negligent act cannot, in the absence of the requisite
mens rea , be treated as a criminal act. He submitted that, in the facts of the
present case, even assuming without admitting that the deceased had been
on the railway tracks at the time of the accident, such conduct, by itself,
could not be treated as a criminal act unless the necessary criminal intent
was established.
19.
He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
3
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. , to point out that the
Supreme Court held that it was immaterial whether a passenger had already
entered the train and thereafter sustained a fall, or whether the fall was
sustained while boarding the train since “accidental falling of a passenger
2
AIR 2010 SC 3705.
3
2008 ACJ 1895.
8
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
from a train carrying passengers” encompassed both eventualities and
would, therefore, constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. He also pointed out that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the said decision, had held that, being a beneficial piece
of legislation, the provisions of the Railways Act must receive a liberal and
purposive interpretation rather than a narrow or technical construction.
20. Applying the aforesaid principles, he submitted that, even assuming without
admitting that the deceased was not inside the train at the precise moment
when he sustained the injuries but was instead knocked down by the moving
train, the incident ought nevertheless to be considered in the context of the
beneficial object of the Railways Act. He submitted that the Tribunal,
therefore, ought not to have adopted a narrow and technical interpretation to
deny the Appellants’ claim.
21. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sadashiv
4
Ramappa Kotiyan v. Union of India to point out that, in the absence of
4
th
Judgment dated 15 March 2021 passed by Bombay High Court in FA No. 658 of 2018.
9
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
appropriate evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have substituted its own
personal opinion for evidence while determining the manner in which the
accident occurred. He reiterated that the Railways Act, being beneficial
legislation, was therefore required to receive a liberal and purposive
interpretation rather than a narrow or technical construction.
22. Mr. Rao submitted that, in the present case, the Respondent had neither
pleaded nor established by cogent evidence that the deceased was a
trespasser, despite which the Tribunal had proceeded to reject the
Appellants’ claim on the basis that the deceased was a trespasser. He
submitted that this finding was plainly unsustainable in law.
23. He concluded by submitting that the Appellants had claimed an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- since the claim had been filed prior to the amendment to the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1998,
which was effected in 2017. He, however, placed reliance upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dilip &
10
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
5
Ors. , to point out that the Appellants would be entitled to interest at the
th
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the accident, i.e., 11 January 2010.
24. Mr. Rao, therefore, submitted that the present Appeal deserves to be allowed
and that the Judgement and Order dated 29th March 2019 passed by the
Tribunal be set aside. He submitted that the Appellants ought to be awarded
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the accident, i.e. 11th January 2010, in accordance
with law.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent:
25. Mr. Pandian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, at the
outset submitted that the impugned order did not merit any interference since
the incident in question fell within the exceptions to the liability for an
“untoward incident” contemplated under Section 124-A of the Railways
Act.
5
(2024) 11 SCC 415.
11
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
26. He submitted that the contemporaneous material on record, including the
SM Memo, Inquest Panchanama and Police Report, clearly established that
the deceased was knocked down by the S/38 Up Local train and that the
incident was not a case of the deceased accidentally falling from a train. He
was also at pains to point out that these documents were all prepared by
Government officials in the discharge of their official duties, who had no
personal interest in the matter. He therefore submitted that the said
contemporaneous official records ought to be given due weight and relied
upon in determining the manner in which the incident occurred.
27. In contrast, Mr. Pandian submitted that the testimony of AW-2 ought not to
be accepted at face value, as AW-2 was a neighbour of the deceased and
was, therefore, an interested and biased witness. He further submitted that
none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Appellants were
eyewitnesses to the actual accident. Consequently, their evidence could not
be relied upon to establish the precise manner in which the deceased
sustained the fatal injuries.
12
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
28. Mr. Pandian further submitted that the name or particulars of AW-2 were
also not disclosed either in the Claim Application or in the statement made
by the Appellants before the Police. He submitted that the subsequent
introduction of AW-2 as a witness, despite his name not having been
disclosed at the earliest opportunity, raised a serious doubt as to the
genuineness and reliability of the evidence of AW-2.
29. Basis the above, Mr. Pandian submitted that the Appellants had failed to
establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death
resulted from an untoward incident within the meaning of the Railways Act.
30. He therefore submitted that the Appeal did not raise any substantial or
tenable ground for interference with the impugned Judgment and Order,
which he submitted was passed upon a proper appreciation of the material
on record. He accordingly submitted that the Appeal be dismissed with
costs.
13
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
Reasons and Conclusions:
31. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and having
considered the case law upon which reliance has been placed, I am of the
view that the present Appeal deserves to be allowed for the following
reasons, viz.
A. The Tribunal has rejected the claim essentially on two grounds (i) that
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and (ii) that the incident
resulting in the death of the deceased was not an “untoward incident”
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act but was
attributable to trespassing on the railway tracks.
B. Insofar as the first aspect, i.e., that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger, the finding of the Tribunal cannot in my view be sustained
in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of .
Rina Devi . The Appellants have discharged the initial burden cast upon
them to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger by leading
the evidence of AW-2, who has specifically deposed that the deceased
14
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
had purchased a railway ticket on the date of the accident. The
Respondent has admittedly not led any evidence to rebut or displace the
evidence of AW-2. Crucially , no question on this aspect was even put
to AW-2 in cross-examination.
C. The attempt made by the Respondent to discredit the evidence of AW-
2 on the ground that AW-2 was a neighbour of the deceased and was,
therefore, an interested or biased witness cannot, by itself, be a ground
for discarding his testimony. The evidence of AW-2 has remained
unimpeached, and there is no material on record which would warrant
its rejection merely on account of his relationship or acquaintance with
the deceased.
D. Similarly, the omission of the name or particulars of AW-2 from the
Claim Application or the statement made before the Police is, at best, a
circumstance which may be considered while appreciating his evidence
but cannot, in the facts of the present case, outweigh the unrebutted
evidence of AW-2. Nothing prevented the Respondents from leading
15
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
evidence or cross-examining AW-2 on this aspect. The Respondents
have, however, consciously chosen not to do so.
E. The second ground on which the Tribunal rejected the claim was that
the death did not result from an “untoward incident” because the
deceased had been knocked down by the S/38 Up Local train while
trespassing on the railway tracks. In arriving at this conclusion, the
Tribunal has principally relied upon the SM Memo, Inquest
Panchanama and Police Report. However, the Respondents have not
led any evidence to establish the case sought to be made out by the
Respondents on the basis of these documents. None of the officials who
prepared the aforesaid documents were eyewitnesses to the incident.
The documents, therefore, could not, in the absence of supporting
evidence, be treated as conclusive proof of the precise manner in which
the accident occurred.
F. In any event, even assuming the Respondents' version of events is
accepted, the Appellants’ claim cannot be defeated in the manner that
16
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
the Tribunal has in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. , which inter
alia held that where a passenger suffers an accident while attempting to
board a train, the incident would fall within the expression “ accidental
falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers ” under Section
123(c) of the Railways Act. The Supreme Court has held that the said
provision must receive a liberal and beneficial interpretation.
G. The Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, as recognised in
Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan v. Union of India , and its provisions must
therefore be given a liberal and purposive interpretation. In the present
case, the Tribunal, in the absence of cogent evidence establishing
trespass or the precise manner in which the accident occurred, was not
justified in proceeding on the basis of inference or assumption to
conclude that the deceased was trespassing and that the incident fell
outside the scope of an “untoward incident”. This would plainly be
17
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan v. Union of India .
H. The Appellants had, in the claim filed before the Tribunal, prayed for
an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/– as compensation, since the accident had
th
occurred on 11 January 2010, which was prior to the amendment to
the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1998, which was in fact, effected in 2017. However, in view of the law
Union of India v. Dilip
as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
& Ors. , the Appellants would be entitled to interest on the amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/– at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the
th
incident, i.e., 11 January 2010.
31. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in (A) to (H) above, the impugned
th
Judgment and Order dated 29 March 2019 passed by the Tribunal is liable
to be set aside, and the Appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.
th
4,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 11
January 2010.
18
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
4-FA-361-2020
32. Hence, I pass the following Order:
th
i. The Appeal is allowed, and the Judgment and Order dated 29 March
2019 is set aside.
ii. The Respondent shall pay the Appellants Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at
th
7.5% p.a. from 11 January 2010 within a period of eight weeks from
today.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
19
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 15:05:36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)