Bombay High Court
MR. WAMAN MARUTI SURYAWANSHI AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, held that the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger who died in an untoward incident, and allowed the claim for compensation under Section 124A.
Summary
The appellants, parents of the deceased railway passenger, appealed against the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of their claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. They alleged that the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger who fell from a moving local train on 22 March 2015, as recorded in the inquest panchanama, and that the Railways’ reliance on a Divisional Railway Manager’s report suggesting trespassing was unsupported. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred by giving decisive weight to the DRM report without considering the independent inquest evidence, and by misapplying the definition of an "untoward incident". It concluded that the deceased’s death qualified as an untoward incident, the exceptions under Section 124A did not apply, and the appellants were the only dependents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s order set aside, and compensation of Rs 8,14,641 (including interest) was awarded to be equally divided between the parents.
Issues considered
- Whether the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger possessing a valid railway ticket at the time of the accident
- Whether the death resulted from an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act
- Whether the Railways is protected by the exceptions under Section 124A of the Railways Act
- Whether the appellants are the sole dependents of the deceased under Section 123(b)
- Whether the evidence of the inquest panchanama outweighs the DRM report and Station Master’s memo
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 104, 106
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — s. 23
- Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003
- Railways Act, 1989 — s. 123(c)(2), 124A, 191, 2(29)
Subjects
- Railway compensation
- Untoward incident
- Bona fide passenger
- Section 124A
- Dependents
- Inquest panchanama
- DRM report
- Railway Claims Tribunal
- Interest on compensation
Judgment
1 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
JYOTI
RAJESH
MANE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH MANE
Date: 2026.09.24
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
16:11:10 +0530
FIRST APPEAL NO.9 OF 2022
1. Waman Maruti Suryawanshi,
2. Mrs.Prabhavati Waman Suryawanshi,
R/o.Ram Nagar, Surya Darshan Chawl,
Room No.275, Digha Gaon, Navi Mumbai. Appellants
versus
Union of India through
General Manager, Central Railway,
2nd floor, G.M.Building, D.N.Road, Mumbai-400001. Respondent
_______
Mr.Vasant More i/by Mr.Deepak Sadvilkar for Appellants.
Mr.Niranjan P.Shimpi with Ms.Bhagyashri Waghmare for Respondent-UOI.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 17th September 2026
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 24th September 2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present First Appeal is filed by the Appellants being aggrieved by
the Judgment and Decree passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, 2 nd
Bench Mumbai (‘Tribunal’) under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 dated 20th September 2019 (`impugned judgment and decree’) whereby the
following order came to be passed:
“ORDER
The claim application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.”
2. Briefly the facts are as follows:
(i) At the relevant time i.e. sometime around 2015, Rahul
Waman Suryawanshi (deceased) was employed with Maharashtra Industrial
M.S.Thatte
2 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
Development Corporation (`MIDC’) and was the sole bread winner of the family.
It is the Appellants’ contention that they were financially dependent upon the
deceased for their needs. It is further their contention that apart from them, there
were no other dependents of the deceased;
(ii) On 22nd March 2015, as per the Appellants’ contention, the
deceased purchased a valid railway ticket at Ghansoli Railway Station and boarded
a local train bound for Airoli Railway Station. It is further Appellants’ contention
that while the train was running between Ghansoli and Rabale railway stations, the
deceased accidentally fell from the moving train and sustained heavy injuries and
died before admission in the hospital. It is the Appellants’ contention that a
railway ticket was recovered from the deceased and the same has been recorded in
the inquest panchanama and subsequently the said ticket was handed over to the
Appellants. However, the Appellants inadvertently misplaced the said railway
ticket.
(iii) On 9th April 2015, the Appellants filed Original Application
No.430 of 2015 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation on account of death
of the deceased under the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989
(`Railways Act’);
(iv) On 8th June 2015, the Respondent-Railways carried out
statutory investigation under the provisions of Railway Passengers (Manner of
Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003 (‘Rules’) and submitted
Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report wherein it was concluded that the
deceased was trespassing the railway track and got injured. It is, therefore,
M.S.Thatte
3 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
Respondent-Railways contention that the deceased had not died on account of an
untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
however, it was on account of his own negligence that the deceased had died. The
Respondent-Railways on 14th July 2015 filed written statement along with DRM
report, inter alia, submitting on the basis of the Station Master, Ghansoli’s memo
that “one unknown person aged about 26 years was hit by an unknown train while
trespassing the railway track”. Accordingly, the Respondent-Railways denied the
claim on the ground that the deceased was hit by a local train and was not a bona-
fide passenger;
(v) On 26th July 2019, the Appellant No.1 deposed on behalf of
the Appellants before the Tribunal, and he was also cross-examined by the
Respondent-Railways. After hearing both the parties and after cross-examination
was conducted, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
“i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in
question at the time of accident?
ii) Whether the deceased suffered injuries and died in an untoward
incident while travelling in the train in question?
iii) Whether the Respondent is protected under the exceptional
clause of Sec.124(A) of the Railway Act and not liable to pay any
compensation?
iv) Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?
v) Relief?”
(vi) By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal
answered certain issues against the Appellants and certain issues in favour of the
Appellants. However, ultimately the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application
filed by the Appellants by holding that the deceased was indeed knocked down by
the unknown train between Ghansoli and Rabale railway stations, sustained serious
M.S.Thatte
4 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
injuries and died subsequently. The Tribunal, however, held on the basis of perusal
of the inquest panchanama that it was established that the deceased was in
possession of a valid railway ticket for his journey of 22 nd March 2015 and hence
was a bonfide passenger;
(vii) The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and the record,
therefore, came to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to prove that the
deceased had fallen down from a local train and had suffered injuries in the process
and died.
3. In view of the aforesaid findings, the following points arise for
determination in the present appeal viz.:
(a) Whether the Appellants have proved that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger travelling with a valid railway ticket and hence
was entitled to the claim as made before the Tribunal?
(b) Whether the deceased had died of fall from the train or had been
hit by an unknown train while trespassing on the railway track?
(c) Whether the deceased had died on account of an untoward
incident and hence was liable to be compensated by the Railways?
(d) Whether the exceptions as provided in Section124A of the
Railways Act are applicable to the facts of the present case?
(e) What reliefs are the Appellants are entitled to?
4. Mr. Vasant More instructed by Mr. Deepak Sadvilkar appeared for
Appellants and Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi along with Ms. Bhagyashri Waghmare
appeared for Respondent-Railways.
5. Mr. Vasant More, learned counsel on behalf of the Appellants
submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts of the present case and
erred in coming to a conclusion that the Appellants were not entitled to the claim
M.S.Thatte
5 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
amount, inasmuch as, it was not proved that the deceased had sustained injuries
while trespassing on the tracks. He further submitted that the Tribunal decided the
issue of bona fide passenger in favour of the Appellants, however, only on the basis
of the memo of Station Master and the DRM report, the Tribunal erroneously
came to a conclusion that the deceased had been hit by an unknown train while
trespassing the railway track. He submitted that the Respondent-Railways failed to
prove that the case fell within the exceptions of Section 124A of the Railways Act
and further that there was no eyewitness i.e. the motorman or the guard of the local
train to prove or depose that the deceased had indeed been knocked down by an
unknown train while crossing the railway track. He further submitted that the
Tribunal failed to consider the most crucial document i.e. the inquest panchanama
wherein it was clearly recorded that the deceased had indeed fallen down from a
running local train and therefore it was incorrect on part of the Tribunal to only
rely upon the memo of Station Master and DRM report. He further submitted that
the Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the claim of the Appellants on the ground
that the alleged incident was not an untoward incident. He submitted that such a
finding of the Tribunal was incorrect, inasmuch as, the Appellants had filed
affidavit-in-evidence wherein they showed that the deceased had indeed fallen
down from a running local train and also the same was proved by the evidence of
AW-1 and the inquest panchanama. He submitted that the Respondent-Railways
had not brought on record anything contrary to prove that the deceased died on
account of being knocked down by the train while crossing the railway track. He
also sought to place reliance on the judgments of Sadashiv Rannappa Kotiyan Vs.
M.S.Thatte
6 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
Union of India1 and Mrs.Seema Pathare & Anr. Vs. Union of India2 to contend
that, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decisions categorically held
that, there was no expert evidence produced by the Respondent-Railways before
the Tribunal to prove the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased therein while
crossing the railway track. He submitted that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court
held that once it was established and held by the Tribunal that the deceased was
indeed a bona fide passenger, there was no reason for the Tribunal to hold that the
deceased died while crossing the railway track, which, per se, was a criminal act.
He submitted that the Respondent-Railways have failed to discharge their onus of
proving that the deceased had not fallen from the running train but was hit by an
unknown train while trespassing/crossing the railway track. He also submitted that
the Tribunal had observed that the nature of injuries could have been inflicted on
the deceased by being knocked down or by being run over by the train without
having any concrete evidence on record to support the aforesaid finding. He also
sought to place reliance on the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act to
contend that, in the facts of the present case, the Respondent-Railways had not
proved that the compensation would not be payable because exceptions as
contemplated under clauses (a) to (e) of the Railways Act were applicable. He also
sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. Rina Devi3 to contend that in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court
has held that negligence is no ground to deny the compensation and further mere
1F.A. No. 658 of 2018 (Bom HC)
2 F.A. 551 of 2021 (Bom HC)
3 2018 ACJ 1441
M.S.Thatte
7 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
absence of a ticket, would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger. He submitted that in the facts of the present case in fact a ticket was
found on the body of the deceased and the finding of the Tribunal that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger strengthens the claim of the Appellants. He
also submitted that post amendment of the Rules, the amendment of compensation
payable in case of death of a passenger as a result of an untoward incident, has been
enhanced from Rs.4 lakh to Rs.8 lakh and by applying the principles in Rina Devi
(supra), if the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed on the date
of impugned Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled
to higher of the two amounts. He submitted that considering that in the facts of the
present case the accident occurred on 22 nd March 2015, applying the principles of
Rina Devi (supra) and the amended Rules, the Appellants would be entitled for a
compensation of Rs.8 lakh.
6. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Railways
submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree dismissing the Appellants’
claim, is perfectly valid and reasoned judgment, and the same need not be
interfered in the present First Appeal. He submitted that in the facts of the present
case, the Appellants themselves had no personal knowledge of the accident and
further that the deceased was not residing with them on the date of accident. He
has submitted that in fact the statement of one Ms.Kanchan Magar Gole, cousin of
the deceased, is a vital statement where the said Ms. Kanchan Magar Gole had
deposed that the deceased and his mother were her neighbours and the deceased
had left his residence on 21st March 2015 and therefore, the Appellants could never
M.S.Thatte
8 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
have the knowledge of the whereabouts of the deceased and about his travel by
train or purchase of the ticket. He further submitted that though Appellant No.1
submitted that he would call said Ms. Kanchan Magar Gole for evidence, the same
was never done, which showed the dishonest intention of the Appellants. He
further submitted that the DRM report on which the Respondent-Railways sought
to place reliance upon, is a statutory investigation report carried out under the
provisions of Rules and the same has sufficient evidentiary value under the
provisions of Section 191 of Railways Act. He submitted that the inquest
panchanama which was only on the basis of the information of panchas, would not
carry any evidentiary value and also the contents therein were very vague and the
same did not show as to whether the ticket was valid or expired or found on the
person of the deceased. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section 2(29) of
the Railways Act, the term `passenger’ has been defined and the same means a
person travelling with valid pass or ticket. The definition of passenger under the
provisions of Section 2(29) is reproduced below:
"(29) “passenger” means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.”
7. He further submitted that initial burden to prove that the Appellants
are entitled for the compensation, has not been discharged by the Appellants and
also considering the same, it lacks the valid ingredients of Sections 104 and 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He also submitted that as per the definition of the
term ‘untoward incident’, as prescribed in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
the act of trespassing by the deceased, would not fall under the definition of the
term ‘untoward incident’. The relevant definition is reproduced below:
M.S.Thatte
9 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
[123. (c) "untoward incident" means—
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of
section (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train
carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office
or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. I have heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties. At the outset, the
only issue which needs to be decided in the present case is whether the deceased
was entitled to the compensation as prayed for before the Tribunal and whether the
cause of the death of the deceased was on account of being hit by an unknown
train by trespassing or whether the deceased had fallen off from a running train
when he was travelling between Ghansoli and Airoli station.
9. To decide the aforesaid issue, the Tribunal on examination of the
documents and evidence, has in my view come to an erroneous conclusion that the
deceased was hit by an unknown train while trespassing, inasmuch as, the Tribunal
has not taken into consideration that there was absolutely no eyewitness or any
evidence led by the Respondent-Railway to establish the aforesaid contention. It is
my view that the Tribunal has only relied on the DRM report and the Station
Master Memo to come to the conclusion that the deceased was crossing the railway
track and trespassing without examining whether indeed the same was a correct
position. In fact, in the office note which forms part of the DRM report dated 8 th
June 2015, it has been noted that the aforesaid incident of the deceased dying
M.S.Thatte
10 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
might have taken place while the victim was crossing railway track. The relevant
office note dated 8th June 2015 is reproduced below: -
“OA No. OA/2015/0430/RCT/BB Date: 08.06.2015
Sub: Case No. OA/2015/0430 RCT: BB, V/S UOI through GM / C. Rly.
CST Mumbai claim on account of death of Rahul Waman Suryavanshi on
22.03.2015 at KM No. 43/4 bet GNSL-RABE stations.
--
Enquiry was entrusted to Inspector/RPF/TAPG who obtained relevant
documents from GRP/VSH and furnished the statutory investigation report in the
case, which reveals as under:
On 22.03.2015 at about 09:10 hours CNC/GNSL issued a memo to
GRP/Vashi that an unknown person is injured at KM No. 43/4 betieen GNSL &
RABE Railway Stations while tress passing the railway track. On receipt of the
memo GRP/SH attended the spot and brought the injured person to
NMM/Hospital Vashi for treatment where he was declared dead by on duty Doctor
on the same day at 10:03 hours. Hence an inquest panchanama was prepared by
GRP/SH and the dead body was handed over to Hospital authority for Post-
Mortem. A case was registered ADR No. 38/2015 under section 174 Cr.PC by
GRP/VSH. As per memo issued by CNC/GNSL and report submitted by
IPF/PNVL this incident might have taken place while the victim was crossing
Railway Track. The documents collected from GRP/Vashi along with the report of
Inspector/RPF/TAPG are attached herewith
ADRM is requested to accord his "Acceptance" as per the provision of Rule.
11(2) of the said statute, please.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Further it is seen that even though the aforesaid office note relies on the
inquest panchanama which had categorically noted that the deceased fell down
from the running local train, the DRM report has been prepared by ignoring this
crucial noting in the inquest panchanama. The contents of the inquest panchanama
are reproduced below: -
(English Translation of the Inquest Panchanama written in Marathi)
Inquest Panchanama
Date- 22/03/2015
1. Mr. Kiran Janardan Waghe, age-36 years, Residing at :- Room No. 179,
Vithal Rukmini Chawl, Ram Nagar, Digha Navi Mumbai.
2. Mr. Nithesh Yogelal Chavan, aged- 26 years, Residing at : Swami Samarth
Chawl, Room No 2108, Digha, Navi Mumbai.
Today PHC 2863 V. V. Doke appointed at Vashi Railway Police Station
called above Panchas at Accident Department of Municipal Hospital at Vashi and
M.S.Thatte
11 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
told that on 22/03/2015, at about 9:10 Hrs. one unknown person aged 26 years
HAS FALLEN DOWN FROM UNKNOWN LOCAL TRAIN at K.M. No. 43/4
and sustained injury and as per Memo of Ghansoli Station Master he was taken to
the Municipal hospital and on duty Medical officer declared him dead before
admission at about 10:03 Hrs. Therefore, as per request, we Panchas and Police are
present and preparing the Inquest Panchanama as under :-
The dead body kept on iron stretcher of Accident Department of Municipal
Hospital and kept in supine Position. Head is towards West side and feet are towards
west side. Name of deceased:- RAHUL WAMAN SURYAWANSHI, aged 26 years
Residing at Ram Nagar, Suryadarshan Chawl, Room No. 275, Dighe, Navi
Mumbai.
Description: Height 5 X 5 inch, physically Medium, Complexion Fair, Face Vertical,
Nose Straight, Mustaches - French Cut, Beard Little. Cloths:- Black Colour Half T
Shirt , White Colour Sando Baniyan, Black Colour Half Pant, Light Colour
Underwear.
Injuries:- 2 inch long wound above left eyebrow, Small injuries bears the said
wound. abrasion on the left hand from shoulder, abrasion on the left knee, abrasion
on the body, On checking the Body we found, One Samsung Company Mobile, Rs.
120 /- Cash, Other Misc. Papers, RAILWAY TICKET.
At the time of preparing panchnama, Brother in Law of deceased Kanchan
Magar Gole, aged 40 years, Residing at Dighe Gaon, Navi Mumbai came at
Municipal Hospital, Vashi and IDENTIFIED THE DECEASED AS HIS
BROTHER IN LAW Mr. RAHUL WAMAN SURYAWANSHI, aged 26 years,
Residing at Dighe Gaon, Navi Mumbai.
Accordingly, to we Police and panchas, The said DECEASED HAS DIED
DUE TO FALL DOWN FROM UNKNOWN LOCAL TRAIN AND
SUSTAINED SERIOUS INJURED. But to know the real reason of his death body
has been sent to Municipal Hospital for post mortem.
This panchanama is prepared in Marathi, read over & explained to us and it is
true and correct.
Panchanama started at 11:10 hrs. and completed at 11:50 hrs.
Therefore written down Panchanama,
Dated: 22/03/2015
1] Sd/-
2] Sd/-
11. The Tribunal, therefore, has completely ignored the aforesaid inquest
panchanama and on the basis of the DRM report which only has held that the
incident might have occurred on account of the deceased trespassing the railway
track has erroneously come to the conclusions that the deceased is not entitled to
compensation.
M.S.Thatte
12 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
12. I am therefore inclined to reject the submission made by learned
counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Railways that the DRM report is an
investigative report and hence has statutory force as per the provisions of Section
191 of the Railways Act. This in view of the fact that Section 191 of the Railways
Act only makes entries in the railway records admissible in evidence, however, the
same does not render them conclusive proof as facts stated therein. The credibility
of railway records must be judicially tested for the reliability and corroboration
especially where they conflict with independent evidence. The reliance placed by
learned counsel on behalf of Appellant on the decision of Basanta Mangaraj and
Anr. Vs. Union of India4 rendered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack bench in
support of the aforesaid proposition would support the view I have taken. The
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision is reproduced below:-
xi. Thirdly, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Section 191 of the Railways Act is
wholly misconceived. That provision merely makes entries in railway records
admissible in evidence; it does not render them conclusive proof of the facts stated
therein. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in treating departmental memos and
internal reports as determinative of factual truth, overlooking the settled principle
that admissibility and probative value are distinct concepts. The credibility of railway
records must still be judicially tested for reliability and corroboration, especially
where they conflict with independent evidence.
(emphasis supplied)
13. Further, in the facts of the present case, when it is an admitted position
that there were no eyewitnesses to testify whether the deceased actually was caught
trespassing/crossing the railway tracks, the contention of learned counsel on behalf
of the Respondent-Railways that the same would not be an “untoward incident” as
defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act deserves to be rejected. The
provision of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act is very clear that an untoward
4 F.A.O. No. 170 of 2025 (Orrisa HC at Cuttack)
M.S.Thatte
13 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
incident would be an incident which would be an accidental falling of any
passenger from the train carrying passenger. The Tribunal has not examined this
fact but on the other hand has held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at
the time of the accident and indeed was in possession of a valid railway ticket.
Once that being the finding of the Tribunal, it would be incorrect on the part of
the Tribunal to merely rely on Station Master Memo and DRM report to come to a
conclusion there was no untoward incident as defined in the Railways Act to deny
compensation to the deceased. I am therefore in agreement with the reliance placed
by learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant in the case of Jameela & Ors. Vs.
Union of India5 & Rina Devi (supra) to contend that when a passenger falls from a
running train during the course of journey, the incident constitutes an untoward
incident, and the Respondent-Railways are liable unless the case falls within the
exception as provided under Section 124 (a) to (e). In fact, in the case of Rina Devi
(supra), it has been held that even in the cases where no eyewitnesses are available,
the presence of a valid ticket, and discovery of the body near the railway track are
sufficient to infer accidental fall unless rebutted by credible evidence. The relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid decisions are reproduced below:
Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India
5. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that
the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under section 124-A of the
Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his
own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was
standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from
where he fell down is entirely based on specula-tion. There is admittedly no
eyewitness of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is
absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took
place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the
5 2010 ACJ 2453
M.S.Thatte
14 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
deceased fell from the irain to his death due to his own negligence it will not have
any effect on the compensation payable under section 124-A of the Act.
6. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 19,89 deals with the 'Liability of Railway
Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to Accidents'. Section 123,
the first section of the Chapter, has the definition clauses. Clause (c) defines 'un-
toward incident' which insofar as is relevant for the present case is as under:
"123 (c) 'untoward incident' means—
xxx xxx xxx
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.—When in the course
of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there! has
been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway
administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the
dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover
damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent
as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of,
or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no. compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway
administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such
treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes-
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(i) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying
passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an
untoward incident."
(Emphasis added)
7. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died
while travelling on it on a valid ticket. he was, therefore, clearly a 'passenger' tor the
purpose of section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen that
under section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful
act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But the proviso to
the section says that the railway administration would have no liability to pay any
compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any
of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).
8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death
of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the
case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he
was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease., His falling down from the
train was, thus, clearly accidental.
9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways,
the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he
fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind
which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act
mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged
under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at
the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a
M.S.Thatte
15 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of
the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.
10. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter. The judgment and order
of the High Court coming under appeal is set aside and the judgment and order of
the Tribunal is restored. Since a period of more than 10 years has already elapsed
from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, the compensation money along with
interest need not be kept in fixed deposits but should be paid to the appellants in the
ratio fixed by the Tribunal. The payment must be made within 2 months from
today.
(emphasis supplied)
Union of India Vs. Rina Devi
18. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabil held that
rate of interest has to be@ 6% from the date of application till the date of the award
and 9% thereafter and 9% rate (interest was awarded from the date of application in
Mohamadi20, rate of interest has to be reasonable rate on a par with accident claim
cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutor provision, interest
can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways
arises up to the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position
in this regard is o a par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.
(emphasis supplied)
14. I am further of the view that the Tribunal was not an expert body to
examine the nature of injuries and come to a conclusion that the said injuries could
have been inflicted only because the deceased knocked down or run over by the
train and not been sustained after having fallen down by any train. This finding of
the Tribunal to my mind is not a finding which can be sustained as there was
nothing on record to show, what could be the nature of injury, to decipher that the
deceased was indeed hit by an unknown train. None of the documents on record
establish, what was the cause of the injury, and hence the same cannot be a finding
which can be sustained. The personal opinion of the Tribunal on the nature of
injuries cannot be a decisive factor to hold that the accident had occurred on
account of the deceased being run over by an unknown train.
15. Further, the Tribunal has also failed to consider the case of the
Appellants that the death of the deceased did not fall under the exceptions as
M.S.Thatte
16 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
enumerated under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Railways Act. In the
absence of such a finding, conclusion reached by the Tribunal, that no
compensation was payable to the Appellants is to my mind an incorrect approach
adopted by the Tribunal. I am therefore of the view that the impugned judgement
and decree of the Tribunal requires to be set aside, and the First Appeal deserves to
be allowed. Considering the evidence led in the present proceedings and the law
laid down by Supreme Court and various High Courts, interference is required in
the impugned judgement and decree. The points for determination are answered
accordingly.
16. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellants are father and mother of the
deceased and hence are dependents under Section 123(b) of the Railway Act.
Further, it is well settled that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and
hence it should receive a liberal interpretation and whenever there are two views
possible, a construction in favour of the beneficiary of the legislation should be
preferred and the real intent of the legislation ought to be sought. Considering the
aforesaid beneficial nature of the legislation, also to my mind, the Tribunal has
taken a narrow and erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act
and deprived the family members of the deceased from the beneficial legislation.
17. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the
Appellant, that considering the amendment effected in the Rules by the
Amendment Rules of 2016 and that the amount of compensation to be payable on
death of the passenger which have been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to
Rs.8,00,000/- is concerned, the ratio as laid down in Rina Devi (supra) would be
M.S.Thatte
17 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
applicable to the facts of the present case, and in view thereof, considering that the
accident had taken place on 22nd March 2015 and the impugned Judgement and
Decree was passed on 20th September 2019, which was after the amendment to the
Rules, applying the principles laid down in paragraph 18 of Rina Devi (supra), the
compensation payable would be Rs.8,00,000/-. However, considering the interest
from the date of accident till today, on Rs. 4,00,000/- at the rate of 9%, it would be
Rs.8,14,641/-.
18. The Supreme Court in the Judgment of Rina Devi (supra) in paragraph
No. 18 has held that, interest will be payable from the date of the accident. Having
regard to the legal position, which is held to be on par with claims under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, interest @9% p.a. (i.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. or Rs.3,000/- per
month) appears to be just and reasonable. It is well settled that Section 124A of the
Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (Rules of 1990) are framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by the Railways Act.
19. Taking into account the date of the impugned Judgment and Decree i.e.
20th September 2019, which is subsequent to the amendment to the said Rules of
1990 in the year 2016 (whereby the compensation payable for death has been
revised to Rs.8,00,000/-), paragraph 18 of Rina Devi (supra) would apply.
Accordingly, a comparison between the two amounts is required to be made, and
the higher of the two amounts is liable to be awarded, this being under a beneficial
piece of legislation. The date of the incident is 22 nd March 2015 and the amount as
compensation as claimed on that date was Rs.4,00,000/-. The impugned Judgment
M.S.Thatte
18 of 18 901.FA.9.2022.DOC
and Decree was passed by the Tribunal on 20 th September 2019. By that time, the
compensation payable pursuant to the amended Rules of 2016 was enhanced to
Rs.8,00,000/-. However, considering the interest from the date of accident till
today on Rs.4,00,000/-, @ 9% would be Rs.4,14,641/-. The total amount as of
today would be Rs.8,14,641/-. As per the ratio of the Judgment of Rina Devi
(supra), the higher of the two amounts is Rs. Rs.8,14,641/-
ORDER
(i) First appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 20 th
September 2019, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) Claim of the Appellant stands allowed of an amount of Rs.8,14,641/-
and as the Appellants are the father and mother of the deceased i.e. the dependents
the said amount be equally distributed between them.
(iii) The said amount of Rs.8,14,641/- be deposited by the Railways in the
bank account of the Appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date the
Appellant furnishes the bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Central Railway.
(iv) If the said amount is not deposited in their bank accounts within a
stipulated period. It will carry further interest at rate of 9% per annum till the time
of payment.
(v) First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Interim application(s) if
any, also stands disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.