1 FA 777.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.777 OF 2025 1) Sakharam s/o Sitaram Asore, Aged about 68 years, Occupation-Labour. 2) Dropadabai w/o Sakharam Asore, Aged about 52 years, Occupation-Household. Both R/o. Dhobi Galli, Purna, Tah. Purna, District-Parbhani. (M.S.) - 431511. .. Appellants ..Versus.. Union of India, through the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, Telangana. .. Respondent ……………. Shri K.U. Fule, Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent. …………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 02.09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2026:BHC-NAG:11933 2 FA 777.25 2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No. OA(IIu)/NGP/7/2024, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed. 3. The perusal of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal shows that the appeal was dismissed on two counts; firstly, the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was travelling from Kacheguda-Narkhed Express bearing train No.17641 on the day of accident and secondly, though the ticket which was found was of two persons, the person accompanied with him was not examined by the appellants. 4. In the light of the submission of both the parties, the facts which are undisputed are summarized as under : The present appellants are unfortunate parents of deceased namely, Shivaji. According to the appellants, the deceased Shivaji was travelling from Nanded to Purna by holding railway journey ticket by Kacheguda-Narkhed train. According to them, due to heavy rush and sudden jerk to the train while he was travelling, he fell down from the running 3 FA 777.25 rain and succumbed to his injuries sustained by him and, therefore, they have filed the Claim Petition. It is their further submission that as per the information collected by them, the co-passenger, who was accompanied with the deceased, was pulled the chain when accident occurred and the Train Manager of the train namely, Sanjay Thelkar has noticed this fact and informed the same to the railway authorities. In view of this evidence available on record, the submission of the appellants is that merely because wrong mentioning of the timing of accident or train ticket cannot be a reason to reject their claim application by the Railway Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, strongly opposed the present appeal. According to them, from the railway journey ticket which was relied upon by the appellants, the timing of purchase of said ticket was shown as 14.55 hours. The Train in which it is alleged that deceased was travelling was departed from Nanded Railway Station at 13.06 hours and reached to Purna on 13.40 hours. The dead body of the deceased was found at near Purna Railway Station near about 14.40 hours and, therefore, considering this timings, it is 4 FA 777.25 clear that appellants failed to establish their case beyond doubt before the Tribunal and, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation. 6. In the present matter, after perusal of the record and more particularly, the statement of Train Manager namely, Sanjay Damodhar Thelkar which is at Exh.R-3 clearly established the fact that after the intimation received to him that untoward incident occurred in the running train, the chain of the train was pulled and the train has been stopped for some period and he has noticed that the deceased Shivaji fell down from the running train and succumbed to his injuries. As such, this material evidence established the fact that the deceased was travelling in a Kachegura-Narkhed Express and the Train Manager, who is the best person, has given the positive statement in favour of the appellants. 7. The learned Tribunal has discarded this material evidence mainly on the ground that the journey ticket shows the timing 14.55 hours and the train reached to his destination i.e. Purna Station on 13.41 hours and the body was found at 14:40 hours. Hence, considering this timing which are not disputed in 5 FA 777.25 the matter, he has discarded the statement of Sanjay Thelkar. 8. In my considered opinion, as per the law laid down by 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, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Para 14, as under is relevant in the matter : 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.” 9. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the term “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying 6 FA 777.25 passengers” required liberal and purposive interpretation. The court should not interpret the said term literally. So also the term ‘passenger’ which is defined under Section 2(29) is includes a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket and, therefore, if he has met with an ‘untoward incident’, then the railway administration is responsible to pay the compensation. 10. It is also pertinent to note that as per Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the Railway Administration can be exempted from the payment of compensation only in the case if they demonstrate before the Tribunal that the case falls under the proviso of the said section. In the present case, it is admitted that it is not a case of suicide or self-inflicted injury or own criminal act nor any act committed by the deceased in a state of intoxication or insanity at the instance of the respondent. Once it is established on record that case of deceased do not fall under proviso of Section 124-A of the Act, then claimants are entitled for compensation. 11. In the present case, the statement of Sanjay Thelkar, who was a Train Manager, is sufficient to reach to the 7 FA 777.25 conclusion that the deceased was travelling in a train along with co-passenger and, therefore, considering this statement, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim application. 12. In respect of the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal that co-passenger was not examined, it is pointed out by the appellants that the appellants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased has only stated to them that he is going by train to Purna. He has never disclosed with whom he was going to Purna. Therefore, there was no reason for the appellants to get the details of the co-passenger and, therefore, co-passenger was not examined before the Tribunal. 13. In my considered opinion, once Train Manager has unequivocally stated that he is the witness of the incident in the matter, no further evidence to prove the untoward incidence is required in the matter. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by rejecting the claim application. Accordingly, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the 8 FA 777.25 Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 06.02.2025 in Case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/7/2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellants are held to be entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the complaint at the rate of 6.5% per annum. (iv) The respondent shall deposit the compensation amount directly to the accounts of the appellants with equal proportionate within a period of three months. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 09/09/2026 10:48:51