Patna High Court

Smt. Babita Devi and OrsversusThe Union Of India, Through The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: KHATIM REZA

Holding

The High Court held that the claimants proved the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger and that his death was an untoward incident, making the Railway liable to pay compensation.

Summary

The widowed wife and minor children of Ram Baran Paswan claimed compensation after his death at Jhajha railway station, where he was electrocuted by a high‑voltage wire hanging in the open door of a train compartment. The Railway claimed he was travelling on the roof, an offence under Section 156 of the Indian Railways Act, and thus not a bonafide passenger eligible for compensation under Section 124(A). The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, but the Patna High Court on appeal held that the ticket recovered and the inquest report proved he was a legitimate passenger and that his death constituted an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(C)(2). Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court rejected the Railway’s reliance on Section 156 and directed the Tribunal to calculate compensation as per the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Union of India v. Dilip and others. The appeal was allowed and the Railway was ordered to pay compensation within three months.

Issues considered

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger eligible for compensation under Section 124(A) of the Indian Railways Act.
Whether death due to electrocution while boarding/de‑boarding constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(C)(2).
Whether the Railway’s reliance on Section 156 (travelling on roof) bars liability for compensation.
Quantum of compensation to be awarded.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 163(A)
Railways Act, 1989 — s. 123(C)(2), 124(A), 156

Subjects

railway accident
compensation
untoward incident
Section 124(A)
Section 156
electrocution
bonafide passenger
minor heirs
liability

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.226 of 2017
======================================================
1. Smt. Babita Devi, wife of Late Ram Baran Paswan
2. Vikash Kumar
3. Chotu Kumar
4. Aarati Kumari
5. Bharati Kumari
Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are minor sons and Appellant nos. 4 & 5
are the minor daughters of Late Ram Baran Paswan represented by their
natural guardian and mother Smt. Babita Devi, all are R/o Village-Manikpur,
P.O.-Laxmipur, Suryagarha, Dist.-Lakhisarai (Bihar)

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union Of India, through The General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hazipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Adv.
For the Railways : Mr. Amrendra Nath Verma, Sr. Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER

7 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel

for the appellants and Mr. Amrendra Nath Verma, senior learned

counsel for the Railways and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned

C.G.C. for the Union of India.

2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred

against the judgment and order dated 19.01.2017 passed in Case

No. MA (OA) 79 of 2010 by the learned Member (Judicial) of

the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna, whereby

the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
2/15

claimants/applicants for grant of compensation on account of

death of the husband/father of the appellants in an untoward

railway incident. Appellant no. 1 is the widow of the deceased

Ram Baran Paswan and appellant nos. 2 & 3 are the minor sons

of the deceased and appellant nos. 4 & 5 are the minor

daughters of the deceased.

3. In order to determine the matter in its correct

perspective, it is necessary to briefly re-state the case of the

parties.

4. The claimants filed a claim application seeking

compensation and interest pendente lite and future expenses.

The deceased was a bonafide passenger and was travelling from

Bhubneshwar Railway Station to Kiul Railway Junction with a

valid ticket, who started his journey from Bhubneshwar Railway

Station to Kiul Railway Junction on 31.05.2009 having Ticket

No. 970707426 and had changed train at Jhajha Railway Station

and boarded Train No. 584 (Down) passenger train to onward

journey. The deceased met with an accident at Jhajha Railway

Station while boarding the alleged train. The deceased died in

the intervening night on 01/02.06.2009 due to coming in contact

with high voltage electric current running in the wire which

supply current to the electric trains, which was hanging in the
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
3/15

middle of the open door of the train compartment due to which

the body of the deceased got burnt and fell down from the train

at platform and died on the spot on account of fatal injury

sustained by him in this untoward incident. A U.D. Case No. 24

of 2009 was lodged with GRPS, Jhajha and after due inquiry, in

detail, and statement of various passengers and the family

members of the deceased, the concerned GRP submitted its final

report stating therein that it is a case of accidental death on

account of injuries sustained due to fall from the train on

account of electrocution.

5. On summons, the East Cental Railways filed its

written statement and denied the claim of the

applicants/appellants. It is vehemently pleaded that the deceased

while travelling on the roof of the train came in contact with

high voltage electricity and died on account of electrocution.

Such type of travelling is treated unlawful under Section 156 of

the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, the applicants claim is fit to

be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the deceased having

suffered electrocution while travelling on the roof top of the

train indulge into criminal act within the meaning of Section

156 of the Railways Act and hence, the concept of liabilities or

provisions of Section 124 (A) would not apply.
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
4/15

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

deceased was a bonafide passenger having valid ticket from

Bhubneshwar to Kiul. The inquest report as well as final report

submitted by GRPS supported the case of the appellants. The

post-mortem report also suggests that the cause of death was

due to high voltage electric shock. The deceased boarded Train

No. 584 (Down) passenger train at Jhajha Railway Station for

onward journey to Kiul Junction in the intervening night of

01/02.06.2009. All of a sudden, the deceased came in contact of

high voltage electric wire hanging in the middle of open door of

the train compartment. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to

appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by

the claimants/applicants.

7. On the other hand, Railways/respondent despite

granting several opportunity have neither adduced any oral nor

prodcued documentary evidence to revert the evidence adduced

on behalf of the appellants. The learned Claims Tribunal has

erred in holding that the deceased sat on the roof top of the train

compartment for onward journey and as such, he came in touch

with high voltage electric wire and got burnt due to which he

died on the spot. Thus, the death of the deceased does not come

under the purview of Section 123 (C) (2) of the Indian Railways
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
5/15

Act and also wrongly held that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger though the journey ticket recovered from the dead

body of the deceased was exhibited. There is no evidence either

oral or documentary to prove that the Railways employees had

warned the deceased for not climbing the roof of the

compartment nor the deceased was prosecuted for the offence as

required under Section 156 of the Indian Railways Act.

8. Moreover, the Railways/respondent has not filed

D.R.M. report as being mandatory provision in deciding the

matter involving the death of the deceased in railway accident.

The death occurred within the premises of Jhajha Railway

Station (platform) on account of gross negligence on the part of

the Railway Administration. The evidence as well as materials

on record fully establish the death of the deceased in an

untoward incident.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil

Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR

2016 SC 3171, wherein, it has been held that “it must be

expected of the persons concerned to be aware of the inherent

danger in allowing the train to run with such speed having

large number of persons travelling on roof top. Though the
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
6/15

people who travelled on roof top also contributed to the mishap,

the Railway Administration was not free from blame.

Concluding so, Supreme Court directed that the next of kin of

those who died in the incident and those who sustained injuries

must be duly compensated by the Railway Administration.”

Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that

admittedly the deceased Ram Baran Paswan died due to electric

shock, who came in contact of high voltage electric wire

hanging in the middle of open door of the compartment. The

body of the deceased got burnt and fell down from the train at

platform and died on account of fatal injury sustained in an

untoward incident. “As untoward incident this case does not fall

into any of the exceptions as mentioned in Section 124 (A) of the

Act, the railway authorities are liable to pay the

compensation.” Reliance has also been placed in the case of

Paramjit Kaur and others vs. Union of India reported in 2012

ACJ 2794.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railways

authorities submits that the deceased died due to his own

negligence. It is further submitted that the deceased was

travelling on the roof top and when he was outside the train on

the roof top of the bogie, he incurred risk of his own and he was
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
7/15

not a bonafide passenger. The deceased by travelling on the roof

of the train, indulged into criminal act within the meaning of

Section 156 of the Railways Act and hence the concept of

liability or provisions of Section 124 (A) would not apply.

Section 156 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 says that a

passenger travelling on the roof, steps on engine of a train

commits an offence. For ready reference, Section 156 of the

Indian Railways Act, 1989 is reproduced hereunder:- “156.

Travelling on roof, steps or engine of a train:- If any passenger

or any other person, after being warned by a railway servant to

desist, persists in travelling on the roof, steps or footboard or

any carriage or on an engine, or in any other part of a train not

intended for the use of passengers, he shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or

with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both

and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant.”

It is further contended that “an accidental falling in course of a

criminal conduct or while doing a criminal act cannot come

within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ in Section 123 (C )

(2) for the purposes of Section 124 (A). A passenger travelling

on the roof would be outside the purview and his falling down is

not an ‘untoward incident’.” Reliance has also been placed in
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
8/15

the case of Kallu Prasad Krushnandan Dubey and others vs.

Union of India reported in (2016) ACJ 455 (passed by Gujarat

High Court Single Bench). It is further submitted that the

deceased passenger travelling on the roof suffered injury due to

burn caused by electric shock while he was climbing on the roof

of the bogie. Therefore, there was no liability for the railway to

pay compensation under Section 124 (A) of the Railways Act.

11. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment and order,

materials on record and also the lower court records, it is

evident from Exhibit A/3 that a railway ticket was found in

possession of the deceased which proves that the deceased was

travelling with a valid railway ticket. Exhibit A/4 proves that the

deceased died due to electric shock. Exhibit A/5 is the inquest

report, which reveals that the dead body was found at platform

no. 1. Exhibit A/1 (F.I.R.) reveals that the deceased died due to

climbing on roof of the bogie and came in contact with high

voltage electric wire. It is also apparent from the record that the

claimants/appellants filed nine documentary evidences to prove

their case. AW-1/appellant no. 1, who is the wife of the

deceased, adduced her evidence in support of the case. On the

other hand, respondent/Railways neither filed any documentary

nor adduced oral evidence to disbelieve the case of the
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
9/15

claimants/appellants. Even the respondent did not choose to file

D.R.M. report, which is essential for deciding the matter

involving the death in a railway accident.

12. Considering the submissions of the parties and

after analyzing the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna,

this Court is of the view that it is admitted fact that the deceased

was found at (Down) platform near G.R.P.S. Post in burnt

condition and a U.D. case was instituted on the basis of memo

issued by the Station Master/Manager. The police also

mentioned that a railway ticket was recovered from the pocket

of the deceased which shows that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger of Train No. 584 (Down) and also instituted a U.D.

case that the said deceased had fallen down in burnt condition

from the train. In absence of any report of the railway

authorities, the Tribunal wrongly presumed that the deceased

died due to travelling on the roof top and contacted with high

voltage electricity wire. The specific case of the

claimants/appellants is that the deceased died on account of

electric shock due to contact with electric wire hanging in the

middle of open door of the train compartment. The railway

authorities failed to produce any evidence to show that the

passengers were warned by the railway servant to desists,
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
10/15

persists in travelling on the roof top of the train. There was no

evidence to indicate that the requests were made by the railway

authorities and the similar officials to get the roof riders come

down from the roof top and announcements were made in that

respect.

13. In the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it must be expected of the

persons concerned to be aware of the inherent danger in

allowing the train to run with such speed having large number of

persons travelling on roof top. Though the people who travelled

on roof top also contributed to the mishap, the Railway

Administration, in our view, was not free from the blame.

Concluding so, we direct that the next of kin of those who died

in the incident and those who sustained injuries must be duly

compensated by the Railway Administration.

14. It is apparent from the record that there was no

evidence to suggest that the railway authorities warned the

deceased not to climb on the roof. On the other hand, AW-1,

clearly stated that the deceased came in contact with hanging

electric wire on the middle door of the train compartment.

15. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) even though
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
11/15

such act was illegal, the Railway Administration was not free

from blame to grant compensation. Learned counsel for the

Railways relied upon Gujarat High Court’s judgment in the case

of Kallu Prasad Krushnandan Dubey (supra), wherein, the

injured himself admitted that he was travelling on the roof top.

In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the

deceased was trying to climb the roof of the bogie.

16. Reliance has also been placed in the case of

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar,

wherein, it has been held that laying down that plea of

negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on

‘no fault theory’ under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the

course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward

incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall

under the provision of Section 124(A) merely on the plea of

negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case, I am of the opinion that the claimants/appellants

have proved their case on the basis of materials available on

record.

18. Now, with regard to question of amount of
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
12/15

compensation in respect of accident, the same has been settled

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.

Dilip and others (Civil Appeal No. 9124 of 2019) which reads

as follows:-

“The question, whether in respect of accidents
that occurred before the Railways Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were
amended w.e.f. 27.12.2016, the amount of compensation
has to be arrived, taking into account the base figure of
Rs. 4 lakhs or Rs. 8 lakhs was considered by this Court in
Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC
572.”
19. The aforesaid judgment was further explained by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.

Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 which reads as

under:-

“11. The issue raised in the matter
does not really require any
elaboration as in our view, the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Rina Devi is very clear. What this
Court has laid down is that the
amount of compensation payable on
the date of accident with reasonable
rate of interest shall first be
calculated. If the amount so
calculated is less than the amount
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
13/15

prescribed as on the date of the
award, the claimant would be entitled
to higher of these two amounts.
Therefore, if the liability had arisen
before the amendment was brought in,
the basic figure would be as per the
Schedule as was in existence before
the amendment and on such basic
figure reasonable rate of interest
would be calculated. If there be any
difference between the amount so
calculated and the amount prescribed
in the Schedule as on the date of the
award, the higher of two figures would
be the measure of compensation. For
instance, in case of a death in an
accident which occurred before
amendment, the basic figure would be
Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying
reasonable rate of interest, the final
figure were to be less than
Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in
by way of amendment, the claimant
would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If,
however, the amount of original
compensation with rate of interest
were to exceed the sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would
be in terms of figure in excess of
Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
14/15

benefit of the amendment, to the extent
possible. Thus, according to us, the
matter is crystal clear. The issue does
not need any further clarification or
elaboration.”
20. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that “The compensation be computed taking

interest @ 7.5% per annum in accordance with both the

modalities namely;

(a) Which was in existence before the

amendment with Rs. 4 lakhs as the

base figure.

(b) Which came into existence after

the amendment, with Rs. 8 lakhs as

the base figure.

The compensation shall thereafter be payable in

accordance with the sum which is greater of the

two, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments.”

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

9124 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 6486 of 2018 has

ascertained the modalities with regard to quantum of

compensation.

22. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed.
Patna High Court MA No.226 of 2017(7) dt.02-04-2026
15/15

23. The learned Tribunal is directed to calculate the

amount of compensation in the light of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above and ensure the payment of

the same at the earliest, preferably, within three months from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.