Bombay High Court
SMT. BASANTI GANGARAM FULWADIYAversusUNION OF INDIA, THORUGH GENERAL MANAGER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Admitted and Disposed Off
Holding
The Tribunal’s reliance on inconsistent and uncorroborated government reports was untenable, and the claim for compensation was allowed.
Summary
The appellant, Smt. Basanti Gangaram Fulwadiya, appealed against the Railway Claims Tribunal’s rejection of her claim for compensation after her son, a 20‑year‑old railway porter, died in an alleged train accident on 25 March 2011. The Tribunal had relied on police, station and hospital reports that concluded the deceased was hit by a moving train, despite the absence of any eyewitness. The High Court found serious inconsistencies in those reports – differing ages (20, 27, 45) and a gender error in the post‑mortem – and noted that no medical expert evidence was produced to substantiate the claim that the injuries were caused by a moving train. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal could not base its decision solely on the flawed government reports. The order of the Tribunal was set aside, the appellant’s claim was allowed with interest up to 6% capped at Rs.8 Lakhs, and the respondent was directed to pay within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- The adequacy and reliability of government‑prepared police, station and medical reports in establishing the cause of death in a railway accident
- Whether the absence of eyewitness testimony and expert medical evidence precludes a finding that the deceased was hit by a moving train
- Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in relying on inconsistent reports to reject the claimant’s compensation claim
Subjects
- Railway Claims Tribunal
- Compensation claim
- Evidence
- Government reports
- Post‑mortem report
- Age discrepancy
- Railway accident
- Judicial review
Judgment
13-FA-1291-19.DOCX
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1291 OF 2019
Smt. Basanti Gangaram Fulwadiya … Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through General
Manager, Central Railway, CST
Mumbai … Respondent
______________________________________________________
Mr. Vasant N. More, for Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Gautam Modanwal, for Respondent.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : Jitendra Jain, J.
DATED : 08 January 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. Admit. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing
at the admission stage.
2. This appeal challenges an order of the Railway
Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 29 March 2019 whereby the
Digitally
signed by
applicant’s/appellant’s claim was rejected on the ground that
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
KARVE
SUBODH
KARVE Date:
2026.01.08
the reports of the Government Authorities states that the
15:59:27
+0530
deceased was hit by a moving train and therefore, the
contention that the deceased fell down form the moving train
was not accepted.
Page 1 of 4
13-FA-1291-19.DOCX
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
the respondent.
4. The deceased, working as Kadiya, was traveling at
around 7:00 a.m. on 25 March 2011 from Kurla to Sion and
the incident occurred between these two stations and the
deceased was declared as dead.
5. There is no dispute that the deceased was holding a
season ticket/ monthly pass for the period 3 March 2011 to 2
April 2011 which period falls within the date of the incident.
On the season ticket/monthly pass age of the deceased is
mentioned as 20 years.
6. The Tribunal has relied upon the reports prepared by
the police, station authorities and the hospital for coming to
the conclusion that deceased was hit by a moving train. I fail
to understand as to in the absence of any person witnessing
the deceased from crossing the railway line how these
authorities can state in their reports that the deceased was
crossing the railway line. Admittedly there is no eyewitness to
the incident and therefore to this extent the reports though
prepared by the government authorities, would not prove that
the deceased was crossing the railway line and therefore
reliance placed by the tribunal on these reports merely
because these are prepared by the government authorities in
the course of their duties cannot be accepted.
7. The age of the deceased is 20 years and the deceased
was a male. This is mentioned on the season ticket/ monthly
Page 2 of 4
13-FA-1291-19.DOCX
pass. In the inquest panchanama, the age is mentioned as 27
years. In the DRM’s report, the age is mentioned as 45 years.
This itself shows that the government authorities while
preparing the reports have prepared the same in a very casual
and negligent manner. The age gap of 20 years, 27 years and
45 years is too wide. This itself indicates that much reliance
cannot be placed on the reports prepared casually by the
government authorities.
8. The deceased was a male but in the postmortem
report dated 25 March 2011 in the details of “external
examination”, the deceased is mentioned as “female”. This
again shows the casual way in which the postmortem report
is prepared by the government hospital. Therefore, even on
this count much reliance cannot be placed on the postmortem
report.
9. According to the tribunal, the injuries indicate that
the deceased was hit by a moving train. Respondents have
not led any evidence of the medical expert in this regard. The
Tribunal is not an expert on these issues and therefore,
merely by reading the nature of injuries from the medical
reports, the tribunal cannot come to a conclusion that the
deceased was hit by a moving train. I have already observed
above the casualness in which the medical reports have been
prepared.
10. The respondent has not led any evidence to show
that there was any witness to the deceased crossing the
Page 3 of 4
13-FA-1291-19.DOCX
railway line though in their reply they have stated that the
place of incident is prone for trespassing. Merely because
certain place is prone for trespassing, it cannot be concluded
that the deceased was hit by a moving train while crossing
the railway line. The deceased was a kadiya and had a pass
from Kurla to Mahim . Generally, kadiya’s leave for the work
early in the morning . The deceased was staying in Chembur
and generally people staying in Chembur board train from
Kurla. Therefore it is probable that at the place of the incident
the deceased was not crossing the railway line.
11. In view of above, the impugned order dated 29
March 2019 is quashed and set aside and the claim of the
appellant is allowed along with interest at 6 % upto the date
of payment subject to maximum of Rs.8 Lakhs.
12. The applicant/appellant to lodge the claim with the
concerned authorities and give the bank details. The
concerned authorities to transfer the claim amount to the
bank account of the appellant within eight weeks from the
date of making such claim.
13. Appeal is allowed in above terms. Consequently,
Interim/Civil Application, if any does not survive.
(Jitendra Jain, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…