1 FA 773.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.773 OF 2023 1) Hirkan wd/o Yuvraj Patil, Aged 70 years, Occu : Housewife. 2) Sadashiv s/o Yuvraj Patil, Age 37 years, Occu : Labour. 3) Bhagavat s/o Yuvraj Patil, Age 33 years, Occu : Labour. 1 to 3 R/o. Vil-Bildi Bk, Po Gorakheda, Tal-Pachora, District-Jalgaon, (M.S.) 424202. 4) Chhaya w/o Chandulal Desle, Age 34 years, Occu : Housewife, R/o. Q. Nagpur 429, Type-2, Hingna Road, CRPF, Nagpur (M.S.) 4400019. .. Appellants (Original Applicant on R.A.) ..Versus.. Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai. .. Respondent (Original Respondent on RA) ……………. Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari, Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Suhasini N. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent. …………… 2026:BHC-NAG:11935 2 FA 773.23 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. 2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 02.05.2023 passed in Case No. OA- II/NGP/54/2020, by which the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. 3. The appellants approached before this court to challenge the impugned judgment by stating the following facts of the matter. The appellants stated that they are the legal heirs of deceased Yuvraj Vana Patil. Appellant no.1 is the widow, appellant nos.2 and 3 are the sons and appellant no.4 is the daughter of the deceased Yuvraj. Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellant no.4 has filed the affidavit stating therein that her deceased father 3 FA 773.23 has caused death in an untoward incident which took place on 19.02.2019. According to appellant no.4 on 19.02.2019 the deceased was travelling to Nagpur to Pachora by Train No.11040 i.e. Maharashtra Express. When the train was near Railway Station, Mhasawad, he fell down from the train and sustained the severe injuries to his head. He was succumbed to the said injuries on 21.03.2019. It is also stated by appellant no.4 that he was the bonafide passenger of the said train and also provided the details of the said railway ticket in her affidavit. 4. It is clarified by appellant no.4 that in the evening on 19.02.2019, her brother informed her that he received a call from Railway Police that her father has fallen down from the train and sustained severe head injury and hospitalized at Civil Hospital at Jalgaon. Immediately, she along with her brother rushed to the Civil Hospital at Jalgaon and for better treatment shifted the deceased at Private Hospital at Jalgaon, namely Dwarka Hospital. He was admitted in the said hospital up to 12.03.2019. However, as he was being aged 72 years old and his condition was detoriating and he went into coma, with the 4 FA 773.23 consultation of Doctor and his brother, the deceased was taken at home and he was succumbed to his injuries on 21.03.2019. In the light of this submission, it was stated that the appellants are entitled for compensation as per the provisions of Railway Act, 1989. 5. The respondent-railway administration has strongly opposed the appeal before the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing their reply. The respondent has admitted the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger as he was having a confirmed ticket of S-3 Coach bearing Seat No.33 of Train No.11040 i.e. Maharashtra Express. However, they have relied upon the statement of one Pointsman namely, Virat Nikam, who has stated that when the train was not getting signal at Mhasawad Station and the train was required to take a technical halt at Mhasawad, he was present at Mhasawad Railway Station. After sometime, when the train moved from the Mhasawad Railway Station, he has noticed that the deceased was trying to de-board from the running train and during that period he fell down and the accident took place in the matter. Relying on this statement, it is the submission of the 5 FA 773.23 respondent that it is the case of the negligence on the part of the deceased and due to which he has caused death in the matter. According to the respondent, for the act of the deceased, the respondent-railway cannot be blamed and no compensation can be paid in such circumstances by the railway administration. 6. In the light of this submission of both the parties and the affidavit which was recorded before the Railway Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal has rejected the application mainly by relying the statement of Pointsman namely, Virat Nikam. According to Tribunal, it is established that the deceased was alighting from the running train and it is a case of self inflicted injury, therefore, considering this fact, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation. 7. I have heard both the counsels at length in the matter. From the submission of both the parties, it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. The train was moving from Nagpur to Pachora. It is also not disputed that 6 FA 773.23 Pachora is a next station after the Mhasawad, there was no schedule halt at Mhasawad. The train has been stopped at Mhasawad Station as it has not received signal for moving forward. Therefore, according to the appellants, the deceased who has to be deboarded at Pachora might be near the gate to get down immediately after the train reaches to the Railway Station at Pachora. It is stated that the halt of train at Pachora Station is only for two minutes, it is likely that the deceased, who want to de-board at that station he was at door, so that he can deboarded immediately the train stop at the Pachora Railway Station. 8. It is further pertinent to note that as per the provisions of the Railway Act, the Railway Department is required to prepare the DRM report of every untoward incident/accident which was taken place with the premises of railway. Accordingly, in the present case, the DRM report was prepared on 01.03.2021. In the said DRM report, the statement of Pointsman namely, Virat Nikam was recorded. In the DRM report, he has only stated that the Train No.11040 i.e. Maharashtra Express has taken a halt as there was no clear 7 FA 773.23 signal. According to him, when the train moved from that station, he has seen one passenger fell down from the train. He has not clarified that how that person fell down from the train. However, when this statement was recorded before the Railway Claims Tribunal, he has improved his statement and stated that the deceased was trying to alight from the running train and in that attempt he has fell down and the accident took place. Therefore, considering this fact that the same person has given the different statement at two occasions, the earlier statement which was recorded in the DRM report is required to be considered in the matter. 9. In the present case, it is further necessary to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India .vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 has considered the term “accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this term should be given wide and purposive interpretation and not a literal interpretation. So also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as per Section 2(29) of the Act, the passenger defined means a 8 FA 773.23 person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. On the basis of this, has recorded the findings in Para 14 which reads as under : 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.” 10. It would be further relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jameela and others .vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705, wherein it is held that even if it is assumed that deceased fell down from a train 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. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme 9 FA 773.23 Court can be seen from Para 5 of the judgment which reads as under : “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 speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to 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 deceased fell from the train 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.” 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both these judgments are applicable in the matter. So also the evidence which is available on record is sufficient to hold that the death caused to the deceased is nothing but an untoward incident and hence in my opinion, the appellants are entitled for the compensation in the matter. In the circumstances, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. 10 FA 773.23 (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No. OA-II/NGP/54/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellants are held entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of application till its full realization at the rate of 6.5% per annum. (iv) The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount in equal share in the account of the appellants directly. The said amount be deposited within a period of three months. (v) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 09/09/2026 10:51:41