Bombay High Court
Shri. Ambikaprasad Trilochan Yadav And ... vs The Union Of India on 23 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:19019
14 Fa-401-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2016
1. Shri. Ambikaprasad Trilochan Yadav ]
Age - 55 years, residing at ]
Village : Berama Vishabharpur, Post : ]
Devgaon, ]
District : Ajamgad, State : Uttar Pradesh ]
2. Smt. Champadevi Ambikaprasad Yadav ]
Aged - 51 years, residing at above address ] ...Appellants
Versus
The Union of India, ]
Represented by the General Manager, ]
Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai ] ...Respondent
------------
Mr. Mohan Rao for Appellant.
Ms. Jyoti Yadav i/b Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 23rd April, 2025.
Oral Judgment :
1. By the present Appeal, the challenge is to the impugned
judgment dated 15th January, 2015 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal,
Mumbai dismissing the Claim of the Appellants by holding that the
incident was not an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. The Claim Application was filed by the parents of the deceased
claiming that on 17th July, 2008, the deceased had accidentally fallen
Sairaj 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 04:17:32 :::
14 Fa-401-2016.doc
down from an unknown local train between Jogeshwari and Goregaon
railway stations and had sustained head injuries and died due to
injuries. It was further pleaded that the deceased was holding valid II nd
class monthly pass issued for travel between Goregaon to Mumbai CST
via Dadar and was valid upto 9th August, 2008.
3. The defense of the Railways was that the incident had occurred
while deceased was crossing the railway tracks. The Tribunal dismissed
the Claim.
4. In support of the Claim, the father of the deceased was
examined as A.W.-1, who has produced the Inquest Panchnama, the
Police Report, the Post-mortem report, the Station Master's Memo, the
railway season ticket and other documents to show dependency.
5. The Railways, in support of the defense, examined the
Government Railway Police to whom the Station Master has issued the
Memo and who had taken the deceased to the hospital. In the cross-
examination, he has deposed that he does not know whether the
deceased was travelling and that the injuries may have taken place
after fall also.
6. The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the monthly season ticket
submitted is for Goregaon which means that deceased stayed at
Goregaon and hence, chance of trespass due to temptation to catch
the train cannot be ruled out and dismissed the Claim without going
Sairaj 2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 04:17:32 :::
14 Fa-401-2016.doc
into the issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Appellants has taken this Court
through the Station Master's memo, Inquest Panchnama, etc. and
would submit that the deceased was found on the railway tracks near
Jogeshwari railway station and the fact that he was holding monthly
season ticket to Mumbai CST would indicate that he had boarded the
train at Goregaon railway station. He submits that the case of the
Railways that he has been knocked down by local train while
trespassing has not been established. He submits that the reports
which were produced on record would prove the incident and monthly
season ticket which was produced would show that he was a valid
passenger. He submits that as defense was that he was trespassing the
railway tracks, the burden was upon the Railways to establish the same
which has not been done in the present case.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Railways
would support the impugned judgment and would submit that there is
specific finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal based on Inquest
Panchnama that the deceased was knocked down and chance of
trespassing cannot be overruled. She submits that there was no eye-
witness produced to show that the deceased had boarded the local
train and therefore, the Claim has been rightly rejected.
9. The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the
Sairaj 3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 04:17:32 :::
14 Fa-401-2016.doc
death of the deceased had occasioned due to 'untoward incident'
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 i.e. by
accidental falling from train.
10. The Applicants have examined the father of the deceased, A.W.-
1. The oral testimony is not helpful as he was not an eye-witness to the
incident and was residing at his native place at the time of the incident.
However, he has produced the Inquest Panchnama, the Station
Master's report, Police report, etc. which have not been disputed by
the Railways. Perusal of the Inquest Panchnama would show that the
deceased was found lying near the railway tracks near Jogeshwari
railway station and had sustained grievous head injuries. The said place
of incident has not been disputed before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
The Station Master's Memo does not indicate that any information was
given by any Guard or Motorman that their train had knocked down an
unknown person. The incident has taken place at 10:45 a.m. and if the
deceased would have been knocked down by railway train, the Station
Master would have definitely been informed about the same by the
guard or motorman of the concerned train. It was possible for the
Railways to examine the Guard or Motorman of the train alleged to
have knocked down the deceased in order to prove that the deceased
had not died due to accidental falling down from the train, but by
reason of trespassing the railway tracks. The said fact was especially
Sairaj 4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 04:17:32 :::
14 Fa-401-2016.doc
within the knowledge of the Railways. The reports produced before
the Tribunal establishes the fact of the accident and the place of
accdient as near Jogeshwari railway station. The finding of the Tribunal
that the incident is of Goregaon overlooks the Inquest Panchnama
which says that the accident had taken place near Jogeshwari railway
station. The Tribunal has also overlooked the Police report stating that
the Station Master, Jogeshwari railway station has given Written memo
about the incident to the constable. In event, the incident had taken
place in Goregaon, it would have been Station Master, Goregaon who
would have given the Memo and not the Station Master, Jogeshwari.
The fact that the deceased was residing in Goregaon in fact assists the
case of the Appellants that the deceased had boarded the train at
Goregaon railway station and had fallen down near Jogeshwari railway
station and therefore, the memo has been given by Station Master of
Jogeshwari Railway station.
11. The sole reason why the Application has been dismissed was by
holding that the deceased was knocked down while trespassing. The
said finding is not backed by any evidence adduced by the Railways and
is therefore, clearly unsustainable. On the other hand, the
documentary evidence on record would establish that the incident had
taken place near Jogeshwari railway station and was due to accidental
falling down from the train for which the Railways will be liable to pay
Sairaj 5 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 04:17:32 :::
14 Fa-401-2016.doc
compensation.
12. In light of the above finding, the impugned judgment dated 15 th
January, 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. The following order is passed:
:ORDER:
[i] First Appeal is allowed.
[ii] The Applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-
along with interest from the date of accident or Rs. 8,00,000/-
whichever is higher. The compensation to be distributed equally
between the Applicants.
[iii] The Railways are directed to pay the compensation within a
period of eight weeks from the date of bank account details
being made available to the concerned Department of the
Railways, failing which they are liable to pay interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. from due date till payment or realization.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 6 of 6
