13-FA-1291-19.DOCX rsk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1291 OF 2019 Smt. Basanti Gangaram Fulwadiya … Appellant Versus Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, CST Mumbai … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr. Vasant N. More, for Appellant. Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Gautam Modanwal, for Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : Jitendra Jain, J. DATED : 08 January 2026 ORAL ORDER: 1. Admit. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing at the admission stage. 2. This appeal challenges an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 29 March 2019 whereby the applicant’s/appellant’s claim was rejected on the ground that the reports of the Government Authorities states that the deceased was hit by a moving train and therefore, the contention that the deceased fell down form the moving train was not accepted. Page 1 of 4 RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Date: 2026.01.08 15:59:27 +0530 13-FA-1291-19.DOCX 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 4. The deceased, working as Kadiya, was traveling at around 7:00 a.m. on 25 March 2011 from Kurla to Sion and the incident occurred between these two stations and the deceased was declared as dead. 5. There is no dispute that the deceased was holding a season ticket/ monthly pass for the period 3 March 2011 to 2 April 2011 which period falls within the date of the incident. On the season ticket/monthly pass age of the deceased is mentioned as 20 years. 6. The Tribunal has relied upon the reports prepared by the police, station authorities and the hospital for coming to the conclusion that deceased was hit by a moving train. I fail to understand as to in the absence of any person witnessing the deceased from crossing the railway line how these authorities can state in their reports that the deceased was crossing the railway line. Admittedly there is no eyewitness to the incident and therefore to this extent the reports though prepared by the government authorities, would not prove that the deceased was crossing the railway line and therefore reliance placed by the tribunal on these reports merely because these are prepared by the government authorities in the course of their duties cannot be accepted. 7. The age of the deceased is 20 years and the deceased was a male. This is mentioned on the season ticket/ monthly p. 2 13-FA-1291-19.DOCX pass. In the inquest panchanama, the age is mentioned as 27 years. In the DRM’s report, the age is mentioned as 45 years. This itself shows that the government authorities while preparing the reports have prepared the same in a very casual and negligent manner. The age gap of 20 years, 27 years and 45 years is too wide. This itself indicates that much reliance cannot be placed on the reports prepared casually by the government authorities. 8. The deceased was a male but in the postmortem report dated 25 March 2011 in the details of “external examination”, the deceased is mentioned as “female”. This again shows the casual way in which the postmortem report is prepared by the government hospital. Therefore, even on this count much reliance cannot be placed on the postmortem report. 9. According to the tribunal, the injuries indicate that the deceased was hit by a moving train. Respondents have not led any evidence of the medical expert in this regard. The Tribunal is not an expert on these issues and therefore, merely by reading the nature of injuries from the medical reports, the tribunal cannot come to a conclusion that the deceased was hit by a moving train. I have already observed above the casualness in which the medical reports have been prepared. 10. The respondent has not led any evidence to show that there was any witness to the deceased crossing the p. 3 13-FA-1291-19.DOCX railway line though in their reply they have stated that the place of incident is prone for trespassing. Merely because certain place is prone for trespassing, it cannot be concluded that the deceased was hit by a moving train while crossing the railway line. The deceased was a kadiya and had a pass from Kurla to Mahim . Generally, kadiya’s leave for the work early in the morning . The deceased was staying in Chembur and generally people staying in Chembur board train from Kurla. Therefore it is probable that at the place of the incident the deceased was not crossing the railway line. 11. In view of above, the impugned order dated 29 March 2019 is quashed and set aside and the claim of the appellant is allowed along with interest at 6 % upto the date of payment subject to maximum of Rs.8 Lakhs. 12. The applicant/appellant to lodge the claim with the concerned authorities and give the bank details. The concerned authorities to transfer the claim amount to the bank account of the appellant within eight weeks from the date of making such claim. 13. Appeal is allowed in above terms. Consequently, Interim/Civil Application, if any does not survive. (Jitendra Jain, J.) p. 4