Bombay High Court
Shri. Nenmal Veerchandji Jain vs The Union Of India, Represented By The ... on 3 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:16696
37 FA-1255-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1255 OF 2016
Shri Nenmal Veerchandji Jain.
Age 59 years, Residing at Shali Bhadra
Nagar, Building No.4, Room No.302,
B.P.Cross Road No.5
Bhayander (East), District - Thane. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Union of India
Represented by the General Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai. ...Respondent.
------------
Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellant.
Ms. Smita Thakur and Ms. Jyoti Yadav i/b Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : April 3, 2025.
Judgment :
1. The First Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment
and order dated 29th February 2016 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal rejecting the Claim Application filed by the father of deceased
on account of the death of his son in an accident which took place on
22nd April 2009 while travelling from Marine Lines to Bhayander.
2. The Application pleads that on 22nd April 2009, the deceased
while travelling from Marine Lines to Bhayander accidentally fell down
from the local train between Marine Lines and Charni Road Railway
Patil-SR 1 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
Station and at that time, he was having a valid second class monthly
season ticket for Bhayander to Churchgate which was lost in the
accident.
3. Claim came to be resisted by the Railways contending that as per
DRM's report and Station Master's Diary, no information was received
by the Station Master about the alleged incident and therefore
incident has not taken place in Railways or outside the Railways. It was
also contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no
railway ticket or pass was found in possession of deceased.
4. The Appellant examined AW-1-father of deceased and AW-2-
uncle of the deceased who was co-traveller and in support produced
the inquest panchnama, police reports, statement made to the police,
the death certificate, post mortem report and necessary documents to
show the dependency.
5. The Tribunal considered the DRM's report which concluded that
though GRP in the inquest panchnama had mentioned that the
deceased was hit by a railway pole and fell down from the local train,
no information was received by the Station Master about the incident
and neither the uncle of deceased had approached the on-duty station
master to report the incident and therefore the incident had not
occurred in the railway premises and dismissed the Claim Application.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken this
Patil-SR 2 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
Court through the inquest panchnama which specifically records that
the panchas were called by the police attached to Churchgate Railway
Station at GT Hospital at 10.05 p.m. as information was received from
the Railway Police Control Room that one unknown person fell down
from unknown local train between Marine Lines and Charni Road
Railway Stations and sustained grievous injuries and his relatives had
taken him by taxi to GT Hospital. He would further point out that the
police report also mentions that on-duty station house officer,
Churchgate Railway Station telephonically informed that one unknown
person had fell down from unknown local train. He would further
submit that police also recorded statement of the uncle of deceased
who stated that deceased had fallen down from local train. He submits
that the Tribunal only relies upon DRM's report to hold that as no
information was received from the Station Master, the deceased had
not died in untoward incident.
7. Per contra learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would
submit that Tribunal has rightly considered the DRM's report which
concludes that neither any information was received from the station
Master about the incident nor the uncle of deceased had approached
the on duty Station Master to report the incident and therefore no
accident had taken place. She would further submit that as no railway
ticket was found on the body of deceased, the deceased was not a
Patil-SR 3 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
bona fide passenger. She would further submit that though the
deceased had a brother, it is only the father who has filed Claim
Application. She therefore submits that it is not a genuine case of
accidental fall from the train and therefore the claim has been rightly
rejected.
8. The following points will arise for determination:
(1) Whether the death of deceased had occasioned due to an
untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989 ?
(2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and therefore
Railways are liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989 ?
As to Point Nos. (1) and (2):
9. The Appellants have examined AW-1-father of deceased and AW-
2-uncle and co-traveller of deceased. AW-2 has specifically deposed
that on 22nd April 2009 he along with his nephew Sandip after
completing the work, were returning home to Bhayander and had
boarded Virar local train from Marine Lines and they were standing
near the door and when local train was between Marine Lines and
Charni Road Railway Stations, due to jerk of local train Sandip's hand
slipped and he fell down from the local train. He has further deposed
that he got down at the next railway station and went to the spot of
Patil-SR 4 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
accident where he saw that Sandip had sustained grievous head injuries
and had taken him to GT Hospital. He has further deposed that the
deceased had purchased Second Class monthly season ticket on 4 th
April 2009 for journey between Bhayander to Churchgate and he had
seen the railway pass and identity card with the deceased.
10. In the cross-examination of AW-2 nothing has been elicited to
shake his testimony. AW-2 has specifically deposed that he was
travelling along with deceased on the fateful day. The only reason why
the Tribunal has rejected the Application is that the Station Master's
diary does not record the said incident and the uncle of deceased had
not approached the on duty station master to report the said incident.
When the findings are examined in the light of specific deposition of
AW-2, who is uncle of deceased, he had himself taken the deceased to
GT Hospital for treatment and there was no cause for him to first
approach the on duty station master. The first and foremost act which
would be done by a relative of deceased is to ensure that the injured
receives immediate medical help.
11. It also cannot be doubted that AW-2 may not be aware of any
such procedure of reporting the incident to the on duty station master.
Pertinently, the GRP has mentioned in the inquest panchnama that the
deceased was hit by railway pole and fell down from the local train.
Perusal of the inquest panchnama would disclose that the panchas
Patil-SR 5 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
were called by the police constable attached to Churchgate Railway
Station at 10.15 p.m. and were told that the wireless message was
received from Railway police control room that one unknown person
fell down from the unknown local train between Charni Road Railway
Station and Marine Lines Railway Station. The inquest panchnama
would make it clear that the wireless message was received from
Churchgate Railway Police Station and it was the duty of Railway police
to inform the same to the Station master and on that basis the claim
cannot be rejected.
12. Further, the statement of uncle of deceased was recorded by the
police inspector and he has specifically stated that the deceased had
fallen down while travelling by local train. AW-2 has deposed as to the
relevant facts relating to the accident which is supported by inquest
panchnama and the Police statement recorded immediately after the
accident. The Tribunal while dismissing the Claim Application has only
taken into consideration the solitary fact that the station master had
not been informed about the accident and has failed to consider that
the inquest panchnama as well as the police statement make it clear
that the deceased had fallen down from local train while travelling
between Marine Lines and Bhayander Railway Stations.
13. The documentary evidence when read with oral evidence of AW-
2, conclusively establishes that the death had occasioned due to fall
Patil-SR 6 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
from local train. Even if it is accepted that deceased while leaning from
the local train was hit by railway pole and had sustained grievous injury,
the same cannot constitute self-inflicted injury as has been settled by
the Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1.
14. As far as the submission on railway ticket not being found on the
body of deceased, the issue is no longer res integra and it is settled by
the Apex Court that absence of railway ticket will not negate the claim
of deceased being a bona fide passenger. In the present case, AW-2 has
specifically deposed that the deceased had purchased Second class
monthly season ticket issued on 4 th April 2009 from Bhayander to
Churchgate, valid for one month and that on the fateful day, he had
seen the railway pass and identity card with his nephew. The possibility
of railway season ticket being lost in the accident cannot be ruled out.
15. In the light of above, the evidence on record conclusively
establishes that the death of deceased had occasioned due to
untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989 and that he was a bona fide passenger, Railways are
therefore liable to pay compensation under no fault liability under
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
16. Resultantly, following order is passed.
(i) First Appeal is allowed.
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572.
Patil-SR 7 of 8
37 FA-1255-16.doc
(ii) Impugned judgment and order dated 29 th February 2016
is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakh
along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of accident or Rs.8
lakh, whichever amount is higher.
(iv) The amount of compensation to be paid within eight
weeks from the date of furnishing of bank account details by the
Appellant to the concerned Department of Railways.
(v) In event the amount is not paid within the above
stipulated period, same to carry interest @6% from the due date
till payment or realisation.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 8 of 8
Signed by: Sachin R. Patil
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/04/2025 20:50:55
