Patna High Court
Pratibha @ Pratibha Devi and AnrversusThe Union Of India Through The General Manager Eastern Railway
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the appellants failed to prove the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger and did not establish the requisite chain of evidence, so the claim does not attract Section 123(C)(2) and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellants, the wife and minor son of the deceased Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prakash, claimed compensation under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 after the husband allegedly fell between the Patliputra Express and the platform at Jasidih station on 9 March 2003 and died the next day. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, finding no record of the incident in the railway’s accident register, no ticket to prove the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger, no police report or post‑mortem, and a delayed FIR filed by the father‑in‑law. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the same evidence, held that the appellants failed to establish a causal chain or the passenger status of the deceased, and concluded that the claim did not fall within the ambit of Section 123(C)(2). Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s order. The court also distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamukayi v. Union of India, noting that the factual matrix was different.
Issues considered
- Whether the death of Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prakash falls within Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
- Whether the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger of Train No. 8621 on 9 March 2003.
- Whether the claim is maintainable despite the absence of a ticket, delayed FIR, and lack of post‑mortem.
- Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim.
Legislation cited
- Railways Act, 1989 — s. 123(C)(2), 124A
Subjects
- railway accident
- compensation
- Section 123
- bona fide passenger
- Railway Claims Tribunal
- procedural lapse
- FIR delay
- post‑mortem
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.346 of 2015
======================================================
1. Pratibha @ Pratibha Devi and Anr Wife of Late Dr. Chandra Shekhar
Prakash,
2. Abhinava Prakash, Son of Late Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prakash (Minor under
the guardianship of his mother Appellant No. 1) Resident of Mohalla -
Indirapuri, Ashiana Road, P.S. - Shashtrinagar, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union Of India Through The General Manager Eastern Railway
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv.
For the Railways : Ms. Priya Gupta, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
13 19-02-2026 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for
the appellant and Ms. Priya Gupta for the Railways.
2. The present appeal has been preferred:
against the order dated 3.07.15
passed in claim application no M.A.
(OA)00016/2004 by the Hon'ble
Member(Technical), Dr B. Ray, and Member
(Judicial), R.K.Mittal, Railway claims
Tribunal, Patna bench by which the claim of
the appellants has been rejected.
3. The case as per the appeal is that the appellant no.
1’s husband, Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prakash (who was serving
with the Gujarat State Government) along with the family was
traveling from Patna to Jasidih on 09.03.2003 as they were
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
2/10
going to Deoghar for the Mundan Ceremony of son.
4. They boarded the 8621 (Patliputra Express) on
09.03.2003 and as the family was alighting from the train at
Jasidih, as per the case of the appellant, when the train started
moving, due to the push, Dr. Prakash fell down and stuck
between the train and the platform. The train stopped at the
instance of the Guard, the husband was taken to Sadar Hospital,
Deoghar where he breathed his last on the subsequent day
(10.03.2003).
5. The father of the appellant no. 1, Dr. Birendra
Kumar Sinha thereafter, lodged the FIR on 26.03.2003 with the
Jasidih GRP (Deoghar). This led to UD Case No. 08 of 2003.
6. The final form was submitted on the very next day
on 27.03.2003 after recording the appellants’ version and
recording that there is no mischief in the death, the case was
closed.
7. Thereafter, the appellant preferred M.A. (OA)
00016 of 2004 (Pratibha Devi & Anr. vs. the Government of
India through the General Manager Eastern Railway
Kolkata) before the Railways Tribunal, Patna Bench
(henceforth for short ‘the Tribunal’).
8. The matter was taken up by ‘the Tribunal’ and the
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
3/10
points for consideration that were formulated is/are as under:
(i) whether the death of the appellant’s
husband happened due to the accident that has
been explained and whether it comes under the
ambit of Section 123(C)(2) of the 1989 Act or not;
(ii) whether Dr. Chandra Shekhar
Prakash was a valid passenger on 09.03.2003 in
the Train No. 8621, Patliputra Express;
(iii) whether the application preferred is
valid;
(iv) whether the appellants are entitled to
any relief.
9. ‘The Tribunal’ after hearing the parties vide an
order dated 03.07.2015 came to the conclusion that:
(i) the Railway GRP has not recorded
any incident/accident on 09.03.2003 inasmuch as
though it has recorded the accident that took place
on 27.02.2003 and 25.03.2003, the memo book is
silent on 09.03.2003;
(ii) the accident took place on
09.03.2003, the death happened on 10.03.2003, the
GRP was never informed about it;
(iii) no valid ticket was provided to show
that he was a bonafide passenger in the 8621
Patliputra Express on 09.03.2003;
(iv) no post-mortem was conducted and
the FIR was lodged after a fortnight on
26.03.2003;
(v) even after the death at Sadar
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
4/10
Hospital, Deoghar, the affected parties failed to
inform any Police Official. In that background, ‘the
Tribunal’ came to the conclusion that the claimant
do not come within the ambit of Section 123(C)(2),
1993.
(vi) the claim was thus negated.
10. Aggrieved, the present appeal.
11. Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the medicine prescription shows that he was
admitted on 09.03.2003 and death took place on 10.03.2003. The
FIR lodged on 26.03.2003 talks about the accident followed by the
death. Further, though the final form has been submitted on the
very next day, it records the fact that the accident took place due to
fall between the platform and the railway track.
12. The submission is that non-availability of railway
ticket and/or not informing the Police Official and/or delay in
lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the
claimants/appellants herein. He has also provided a document
which shows that prior to 28.04.2014, when a new Station
Manager took charge at the Jasidih railway station, there was no
maintenance of untoward incident register. He submits that in
that background, ‘the Tribunal’ erred in passing the order in
question.
13. In support of his case, he has taken this Court to
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
5/10
an order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamukayi & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023) with
reference to paragraph nos. 18 and 19 which read as follows:
18. Now, reverting to the issue
whether the deceased was a bona fide
passenger? In this regard, the ocular
statement of AW1- Manikandan, son of the
deceased, who procured a valid train ticket
for travel from Lalapettai to Karur and
handed it over to the deceased is on record.
As per the statement of AW1, the averments
made in the claim petition have been
testified and even in the cross-examination,
he has reiterated that ticket for deceased
from Lalapettai to Karur was purchased for
a sum of Rs. 10/- and sent him off at Station
to go to Karur. The deceased fell down at
Mahadanapuram Railway Station. The said
averment of the claim petition and the
statement of D. Ravisankar, Station Master
finds support from inquest report prepared
by the Inquest Officer on the date of
incidence i.e. 27.9.2014 and the final report
prepared by the Investigation Officer,
Railway Police Station Trichy on
14.11.2014. The said reports have been
referred to in the investigation report dated
7.6.2017. Considering the material brought
on record, in our view, the initial burden that
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
6/10
the deceased passenger was having a valid
ticket has been discharged shifting onus on
the Railway Administration to disprove the
said fact. Nothing has been placed before
Claims Tribunal or brought on record during
the course of hearing that the Railway
Administration has discharged the burden of
not having the valid railway ticket with the
deceased passenger, except to say that
during recovery ticket was not found. In
absence of any cogent evidence,
notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, the Railway Administration shall
be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
19. In view of above discussion,
we are of the considered opinion that as per
law laid down by this Court in Rina Devi
(supra), it is proved beyond reasonable
doubt that deceased Muchamy @
Muthusamy died in an untoward incident
which took place on 27.9.2014 while
travelling in a passenger Train No. 5684 and
he was a bona fide passenger. The findings
adversely recorded by the Claims Tribunal
and affirmed by the High Court are
perverse, therefore set-aside. In our view, as
per the provisions contained in Section 124A
of Railways Act and Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990, the appellants are entitled to claim
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
7/10
compensation.
14. He submits that the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble
Apex Court fully applies in the present case and the appeal is fit
to be allowed as ‘the Tribunal’ erred in considering these facts
while negating the claim of the appellants.
15. Mrs. Gupta represent the Railways. A counter
affidavit has been filed, learned counsel submits that:
(i) there is no record about the said
incident of 09.03.2003 in the Jasidih railway
station;
(ii) the Sadar Hospital, Deoghar
recorded severe pain in chest;
(iii) admittedly, the death took place on
10.03.2003 but neither the local Police was
informed nor post-mortem of the deceased was
conducted;
(iv) the FIR was lodged on 26.03.2003
not by the claimant/appellant but by the father-in-
law of the deceased;
(v) the constable who the appellant
claims to have taken her husband to the hospital
was not examined or statement recorded;
(vi) in that background, ‘the Tribunal’
justifiably rejected the claim of the appellants;
16. The further submission with regard to the case of
Kamukayi & Ors. (supra) is that a perusal of paragraphs 18 &
19 would show that there, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
8/10
conclusion that there was a fall while traveling in the passenger
train no. 5684 on 27.09.2014 and in that background, the claim
was allowed. However, in the present case, the railways have
not only denied any such incident on 09.03.2003, even the
appellants have failed to complete the chain and as such, the
said order is not applicable in the present case.
16. Having heard the parties and perusing the records,
this Court is in complete conformity with the submissions put
forward by the learned counsel for the railways. The facts which
cannot be ignored is/are that:
(i) the appellants claim that the
accident took place on 09.03.2003 while
they were alighting from the train no. 8621
(Patliputra Express) at Jasidih station;
(ii) there is no record in the
railways regarding such incident though as
per the record (incorporated by ‘the
Tribunal’), the incidents of 27.02.2003 and
25.03.2003 have been recorded;
(iii) admittedly, the death took
place on 10.03.2003 and in that background,
the least that was expected from the
claimants/appellants is/was to inform the
Police and get the post-mortem conducted.
However, for the reasons best known, it was
not done;
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
9/10
(iv) the FIR came to be lodged
after a fortnight that too not by the
appellants but by the father-in-law of the
deceased and there is nothing on record to
show that he was also part and parcel of the
said journey;
(v) the very next day, the final
form was submitted without recording the
statements of the lady, the family members
and/or the constable who allegedly took the
deceased to the hospital and
(vi) last but not the least, despite
the entire family members traveling in the
train, not a single ticket was produced;
(vii) it has to be noted that the
case of the appellants is/are that the entire
family members were traveling by the train;
(viii) this Court thus records that
the appellants failed to even create a chain;
(ix) in that background, ‘the
Tribunal’ rightly negated the chain.
17. So far as the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kamukayi and others (supra) case is concerned,
there, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that
the claimants have proved the accident/fall from the train and in
that background, the relief was granted. Here, not a single point
has been put forward to prove the case and in that background,
the aforesaid order in no way came to the aid of the appellants.
Patna High Court MA No.346 of 2015(13) dt.19-02-2026
10/10
The appellant at no point of time has come anywhere close to
create a chain warranting interference in the reasoned order
dated 03.07.2015 passed by ‘the Tribunal’.
19. This takes the appeal to only one conclusion, it
has to be dismissed. M.A. No. 346 of 2015 is dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…