1 FA 608.21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.608 OF 2021 1) Anuradha wd/o Rajendra Rastogi, Aged about 56 years, Occupation-Housewife. 2) Princy d/o Rajendra Rastogi, Aged 25 years, Occu : Nil. Both are R/o. Kuwaja Kutub Poorvi, Bareily City, Dist. Bareily (UP)-243122. .. Appellants ..Versus.. The Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai. .. Respondent ……………. Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari, Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent. …………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 03.09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2026:BHC-NAG:11934 2 FA 608.21 2. By the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 07.12.2018 in Case No.OA (IIu)/NGP/67/2017, by which the claim application of the appellants was dismissed. 3. It is the submission of appellant no.1 that she is the widow of deceased and appellant no.2 is her son. The deceased was a businessman at Bareilly. It is further stated by appellants that deceased every year used to visit at Shirdi to offer prayers by visiting the first day of each other. Accordingly, on 31.12.2016 he was at Shirdi. Thereafter, by offering his prayer, when he was at his return journey from Manmad to Bareilly, he was travelling in a Bareilly Express Train bearing Train No.14313. During the travel period, as there was a heavy rush in the train and sudden jerk, he lost his balance and fell down from the running train. As a result, he caused injuries on his body and his hand and leg were also cut down in the said accident. 3 FA 608.21 4. In view of this untoward accident which was taken place in the matter, the present appellants, who are the legal heirs, filed the proceeding before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellant no.1 has filed her affidavit stating all these particulars and also relied upon the police case papers from which it is established that the deceased has caused death in a railway accident. 5. In rebuttal, the respondent-railway administration has filed affidavits of one Manoj Kumar Singh, Kishor Nilkanth Maniwale and Vasantrao Sitaramji Patil. According to the respondent, firstly, deceased was not having a valid passenger ticket of the train when his body was searched by the police officers, secondly, there was no eyewitness to this incident which is alleged by the appellants and thirdly, though the several trains were passed after the alleged incident, as per the appellants, no Loco Pilot of the train or other persons present in the train has noticed the body which was lying on the up-track as recorded in police case papers. 4 FA 608.21 6. 4 FA 608.21 6. On the basis of this submission and evidence which was available before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application by holding that as the appellants failed to furnish the valid ticket of the deceased, the timing of the train when it was received to Manmad and untoward incident was not noticed immediately by any passing trains on that track during the period of three hours when his body was lying near the track. As such, on this count the claim application was rejected. 7. In the background of above said factual position, the appellants approached before this court and pointed out that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated all the documentary evidence made available before him in a proper manner and, therefore, seeks indulgence of this court in the matter. 8. The appellants have firstly relied upon the DRM report which is used to be prepared by the respondent after every accident. It is the practice of the respondent-department that immediately after the accident, they made enquiry by recording the statements of various persons, who are connected or aware of such incident on the basis of report, they defend their case 5 FA 608.21 before Tribunal. 9. In the present matter, the DRM report is prepared on 05.12.2017. According to the appellants, if the DRM report is perused, it is clearly recorded that when Train No.12546 (Raxaul Karmabhoomi Express) was passing through the track, the passenger therein has indicated that one dead body is lying down on the up-track, but in the impugned judgment this aspect was not properly appreciated. 10. The appellants then relied upon the affidavit of Vasantrao Sitaramji Patil (A-117). He has categorically stated in his affidavit that Deputy Station Superintendent, Mhasavad has informed him that passengers of Train No.12546 has made hand signal and pointed out about the incident when the said train was passing through at 17.35 hours. Thereafter, he went on the spot along with Trackman and noticed about the dead body of the deceased. According to him, the dead body was lying three meters from track near shrubs. Hence, the railway persons confirmed the lying of dead body near railway track. This fact was also not properly dealt with by Railway Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the indulgence of this court is 6 FA 608.21 necessary in the matter. 11. Per contra, the respondent has strongly opposed the appeal. It is the submission of the respondent that deceased was travelling by Bareilly Express Train from Manmad to Bareilly on 02.01.2017. It is pointed out that as per the appellants, the accident took place at around 03.30 pm, however, the said train reached to the Mhasavad Station at around 3.10 pm. But at that time, no one has informed to the Mhasavad Railway Station about this untoward incident. According to the respondent, the dead body of the deceased was noticed at around 6.04 pm i.e. after three hours of alleged untoward incident. During this period, almost two up trains and five down trains were moved from that track, but no one has noticed about the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, the submission of the appellants cannot be accepted in the matter. 12. In the present matter, the fact cannot be denied by the respondent that as per their own DRM report dated 05.12.2017 they have itself recorded that the passengers of Train No.12546 has indicated to the Station Officer that one dead body was lying on the down track. Furthermore, the affidavit of Vasantrao 7 FA 608.21 Sitaramji Patil is very specific. He has stated that when he went to the spot along with Trackman, he found that the body was lying three meters from the track near shrubs. Hence, there is every possibility as the dead body was lying near the shrubs, the same was not noticed by the Loco Pilot or other persons of the trains which was passed on the same track. 13. In respect of the timing, it would be relevant to note that the appellant has specifically came with a case that for offering the prayers the deceased was at Shirdi. He was travelling back from Manmad to Bareilly. The train was moved on that track at around 3.00 PM. Therefore, there is a sufficient evidence to note that the accident was occurred in a running train when the deceased was travelling from the same train. The respondent failed to point out that case of appellants falls under the proviso of Section 124-A of Railways Act. Therefore, considering the facts available on record, it is clear that during the travelling period in an untoward incident deceased caused death. 14. In the light of above said factual position, I am satisfied that the appellant has proved the case on the basis of oral and 8 FA 608.21 documentary evidence available on record. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence which was available on record and wrongly drawn conclusion against appellant that he failed to prove her case. Hence, the indulgence of this court is necessary in the matter. In the circumstances, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 07.12.2018 in Case No.OA (IIu)/NGP/67/2017, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till its full realization. (iv) The respondent is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest directly to the account of Appellant No.1 within a period of three months from the date of this order. (v) In the above terms, the appeal stands disposed of. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 09/09/2026 10:50:32