1 FA 158.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.158 OF 2026 Asha wd/o Bhausaheb Patil, Aged about 45 years, Occupation-Household, R/o. At Madlapur, Taluka-Udgir, District-Latur. Pin No.413517. .. Appellant ..Versus.. Union of India, Through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (A.P.) .. Respondent ……………. Mr. R.G. Bagul, Advocate for Appellant. Ms. N.G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent. …………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 23.09.2026. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No. OA (Ilu)/NGP/149/2024 by which the claim application was dismissed on the ground 2026:BHC-NAG:12877 2 FA 158.2026 that the deceased was found negligent while boarding in the train. 2. The case of the appellant is that on 16.07.2024 the deceased was travelling by a train namely, Bidar-Yeshwantpur Express from Bidar to Banaglore. As the distance was long and the train was having a halt at various places, the deceased has alighted from the train at Vikarabad Railway Station for refreshment. While he was taking some food items, the train was started and, therefore, he has rushed to board in the train. However, at that time, he could not hold the handle of the train properly and in an untoward incident sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the death. On the basis of this submission, the appellant has filed the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 3. The respondent-railway department has strongly opposed the claim application. According to the respondent, it was the negligence on the part of the deceased while boarding the train, when it has taken the halt. It was the duty of the deceased to get inside the train before the train was started from the Vikarabad Station. Therefore, for the negligence of the 3 FA 158.2026 deceased, the railway department cannot be held responsible to pay the compensation. The further submission of the respondent was that he was not a bonafide passenger of the train. Hence, on both the counts, the appellant was not entitled for the compensation and hence the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. 4. In the present matter, on behalf of the appellant, Asha wd/o Bhausaheb Patil has filed the affidavit stating that the deceased was travelling in Bidar-Yashwantpur Express Train on 16.07.2024. On same day at around 11.00 pm, he received a phone call from the railway administration informing that her son namely deceased Abhisahak has met with an accident and has been hospitalized in the hospital namely, Nijam Institute of Medical Science Hyderabad and caused death. On the basis of this information and the details, she has claimed the compensation in the matter. 5. It is pointed out by the appellant that there was no evidence led by the railway administration before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The only evidence which was available was of present claimant namely, Asha wd/o Bhausaheb Patil. 4 FA 158.2026 6. In the present matter, the railway department has prepared the DRM report dated 25.11.2024. As per the conclusion drawn by the railway authorities, it is recorded that as per the statement of one Sri Y. Linga Swamy, Pointsman of Vikarabad Station, has stated that the deceased was tried to board the running train and slipped from the train at Vikarabad Railway Station on Platform No.1 and fallen down under the train and got serious injury. Due to the said injury, succumbed to the said injuries. 7. As such, it is established on record that the deceased caused death as he could not board the train in time when the train has taken the halt at Vikarabad Railway Station. In this regard it would be 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 Court can be seen from Para 5 of the judgment which reads as under : 5 FA 158.2026 “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.” 8. In the present matter, from the documents and evidence available on record, it is clear that on the day of incident, the train was halted at Vikarabad Railway Station for a short period. The deceased has enlightened from the train for having a refreshment. However, while deboarding in the train, his hand was slipped from the handle of the train and caused death in the accident. Therefore, considering this fact of the case which is supported from the DRM report, the case of the appellant squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as stated above. 6 FA 158.2026 9. It is further pertinent to note that the railway administration did not enter into the witness box and failed to establish that case of the appellant falls in any of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railway Act. No other evidence is available on record to state that the case of the deceased falls under any of the proviso i.e. self inflicted injury, suicide or attempted suicide and criminal act. It is a clear case of negligence and, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has wrongly rejected the claim application. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent-railway administration is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lacs only) to the appellant from the date of filing of the complaint along with interest at the rate of 6.5 % per annum. 7 FA 158.2026 (iv) The railway administration shall directly deposit the amount in the bank account of the appellant within a period of three months. No order as to cost. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 29/09/2026 18:08:10