1 FA 115.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.115 OF 2023 Shobha wd/o Jagannath Nagare Aged about 47 years, Occupation-Housewife, R/o. Hou. No.26/1, J. Sector, Near Kunthe Kirana Stores, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, Tal/Dist-Aurangabad (M.S.) 431 001. .. Appellant .. Versus .. The Union of India, General Manager, Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai. .. Respondent ………. Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari, Advocate for Appellant. Ms. Neerja Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent. ………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 30.09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No.OA (IIu)/NGP/170/2018. 2026:BHC-NAG:13230 2 FA 115.23 2. The present appellant is the mother of the deceased who lost his life in a train accident dated 22.04.2018. It is the case of the appellant before the Tribunal that on 22.04.2018 the deceased Abhijeet was travelling from Bhusawal to Manmad by an unknown train, but accidentally he fell down from the running train between Jalgaon to Bhadli in between K.M. No.421/20-22 on up railway line Jalgaon and sustained serious injuries to his head and died on the spot. Hence, it being a case of an untoward incident, claimed the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest before the Tribunal. 3. The respondent-railway has strongly opposed the appeal before the Tribunal. According to the respondent, when the dead body of the deceased was found, the railway administration could not find out any valid railway ticket from the dead body of the deceased. As such, according to them, he was not a bonafide passenger of a train and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. It is further their case that there was no any evidence available on record that any such untoward incident took place while he was travelling in an unknown train because no one came forward to 3 FA 115.23 inform the railway administration of such incident took place on 22.04.2018 from the train in which he was travelling. In this background, the learned Tribunal by upholding the submission of the Railway Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant before the Railway Tribunal. 4. The appellant, who approached before this court, has raised various grounds to challenge the impugned judgment. The prime submission of the appellant is that as per the settled principles of law, the appellant has discharged the primary burden by placing on record the affidavit and the relevant fact that the accident which was took place on 22.04.2018 was an untoward incident. However, after discharging her burden, it was for the railway administration to establish their case that the case falls under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, but the respondent-railway administration failed to discharge their burden in the matter. Hence, considering it as an untoward incident, the appellant is entitled for the compensation in the matter. 5. In the present case, the appellant has filed the affidavit before the Tribunal specifically stating that deceased Abhijeet 4 FA 115.23 was in a regular contact on Telephone with her. On 22.04.2018, he has informed the appellant that he is going to meet his friend at Bhusawal, so from Aurangabad deceased came to Bhusawal by bus. After meeting his friend at Bhusawal, deceased has travelled from the train for Manmad for his personal work. However, while he was travelling from Manmad to Bhusawal, in an untoward incident, the son of the appellant lost his life and hence, according to the appellant, as this averments are made in the affidavit, it is clear that she has discharged her burden in the matter. 6. In the present case, from the record it is seen that the respondent has relied upon the evidence of R.W. No.1 Manoj Kumar s/o Shri Nathuram Verma, who was working as a Deputy Station Superintendent at Jalgaon Railway Station. He has stated that the Loco Pilot of UP Train No.22137 coming from Bhadli Station towards Jalgaon Station at about 5.20 pm, informed that the dead body of unknown person was lying at K.M. No.421/20-22. As such, it is clear that the Railway Administration has noticed the dead body of the deceased at about 5.20 pm on the same day. Admittedly, the said incident 5 FA 115.23 was taken place on broad day light and, therefore, if such incident was taken place, the respondent-railway administration ought to have established on record by any concrete proof that the case is covered by any of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act i.e. the deceased was attempted to commit suicide, self inflicted injury or he was intoxication etc, but to that effect, there is no such evidence is available on record. 7. 7. It is further pertinent to note that the Trackman, who found the dead body of the deceased, has specifically stated in the DRM enquiry that the deceased was caused multiple and several injuries on his body and the postmortem report shows that due to the head injury he caused the death in the matter. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the death of the deceased due to several injuries caused to him. From DRM report also it cannot be concluded that, deceased case falls under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 8. It would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India .vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 6 FA 115.23 (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 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 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.”. 7 FA 115.23 9. So also 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 and caused 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. 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.” 10. In view of above factual as well as legal position, the learned Tribunal has committed an error to dismiss the claim application merely on the ground that the railway ticket was not 8 FA 115.23 found with the deceased at the time of spot panchanama or in a police case papers. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Section 124-A of the Railways Act in the present case. As the learned Tribunal failed to consider the legal position, the impugned judgment and 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 23.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No.OA (IIu)/NGP/170/2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application filed by the appellant before the Railway Tribunal. (iv) The respondent shall deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest directly in the bank account of the appellant within a period of three months. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 05/10/2026 19:47:01