fa 1164-2023.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2023 1. Guriya Kumari wd/o Lalu Kumar Aged about 27 years, Occu: House wife 2. Ankush s/o Lalu Kumar Age – 4 yrs, occu- Nil (Apl. No.2 through apl. No.1 Mother, NG) 3. Devendra s/o Lalan Yadav Age- 43 yrs, occu- Labour 4. Rinku Devi w/o Devendra Yadav Age- 40 yrs, Occu- Housewife All R/o Barewan, Mera Khanpura, Dist- Patna, Bihar - 801110 … APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through General Manager Central Railway, CSMT Mumbai. … RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S.M. Chaudhari, Advocate for appellant Shri Saurabh A. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , JJ.. DATE D : 07.10.2026 2026:BHC-NAG:13553 fa 1164-2023.odt 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. In the present appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dated 19.06.2023, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. The submission of the present appellants that admittedly the deceased, who was traveling from Lokmanya Tilak to Patna Jn., along with his cousin brother, by Train No.13202, i.e. Rajendra Nagar Express train, has purchased a valid ticket. As such, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. It is submitted that the deceased accidentally fell down from running train near Duskheda Railway Station and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, considering the same as an untoward incident, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellants in the matter. fa 1164-2023.odt 3 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent Railway Administration has strongly opposed the present appeal. It is the submission of the respondent, though the deceased was having a valid railway ticket, he ought to have occupied his seat when he was traveling. But he was negligent and standing near the door of the running train. Hence, due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident caused in the matter, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application filed by the appellants in the matter. 5. In light of the submission of both the parties, it would be relevant to consider the settled legal principles of law, which is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jamila and others vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3705. Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even if it is assumed that deceased fell down from the train and caused death due to his own negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under fa 1164-2023.odt 4 Section 124A of the Railways Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed in paragraph No.5 of the judgment 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 124A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railway 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 of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway 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.” 6. It is also pertinent to note that once claimant stated relevant fact on affidavit, the burden shifted on the Railway Administration to satisfy the case of the appellants falls under the proviso of Section 124A of the Act. And if it is established on record then Railway Administration can be exempted from payment of compensation. However, in the present case, it is no fa 1164-2023.odt 5 one’s case that deceased has committed to suicide or attempted to suicide or self-inflicted injury or any criminal act, or any act committed by deceased in a state of intoxication or insanity. 7. In the present matter, the respondent Railway Administration failed to point out any such act on the part of the deceased. The only submission is that due to negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred in the matter, and therefore, Railway Administration is not responsible. Hence, in any case, the defence of the respondent does not satisfy the proviso of Section 124A of the Railway Act. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside, and accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2023 in fa 1164-2023.odt 6 Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/NGP/143/2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The appellants are held for entitlement of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization at the rate of 7.5% per annum. iv) The respondent Railway Administration is directed to deposit the compensation amount in equal proportion in the accounts of appellants. The share of the minor be deposited in the account of appellant No.1. v) The Railway Administration shall deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of three weeks. 9. The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) R.S. Sahare Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:20:09