Bombay High Court
Shri. Ramdas Omkar Sonawane And Ors. vs Union Of India, Thr. General Manager, ... on 14 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:35324
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date:
2025.08.14
20:25:18
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2021
Ramdas Omkar Sonawane & Ors ... Appellants
V/s.
Union of India, Through General Manager,
Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai ... Respondent
****
Mr. Vasant N. More for the Appellants.
Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w. Ms Prajakta Joshi, Mr. Gautam Modanwal & Ms
Noorjahan Khan for Respondent
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2025
P.C. :
1. This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order dated
31.01.2020 passed in Claim Application No.OA(II u)/MCC/1134/
2013 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. By the
said impugned order, the claim application made by the Appellants is
dismissed.
2. The Appellants' case in short, is that they are the husband and
sons and deceased Dagubai Ramdas Sonawane who died in an
untoward incident falling from local train. That deceased Dagubai
was a house-wife of about 45 years, who was travelling as bona-fide
passenger on the strength of valid second class ticket on 10.07.2013,
from Ulhasnagar to Kalyan station. That when train was running
between Vithalwadi to Kalyan stations, deceased Dagubai
accidentally fell down from the said train and came under it, thereby
died on the spot as her body was cut into two pieces from waist
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
below. That the Appellants are dependents and therefore
compensation was claimed as per applicable rules.
3. The Respondent - Railway filed written statement along with
DRM report and denied all the averments. It is contended that the
Appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger who accidentally fell down from the train. It is contended
the deceased was knocked down by a local train while illegally
crossing railway-tracks and the incident has occurred due to
deceased's own act of negligence and carelessness and as such, the
incident cannot be termed as untoward incident. It is contended that
the Appellants are not entitled for any compensation.
4. The Railway Tribunal framed necessary issues and held that
though the Appellants are dependents on the deceased within the
meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, however, it is not
proved that the deceased was bona fide passenger and died as a
result of an untoward incident. Therefore, claim was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel Mr. More for the Appellants submitted that
notwithstanding the fact that the body of the deceased was cut into 2
pieces, it cannot be conclusively said that it is a case of run-
over/knock-down by the local train while illegally crossing the
railway tracks. It is contended that there is no expert witness
examined to arrive at conclusion of knock-down/run-over based on
the injuries and conditions of the dead body. It is contended that the
Appellants had filed affidavit of evidene, sufficiently establishing that
the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and the burden shifted on
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
Respondent - Railway and no fatal admission is extracted and there is
no effective cross examination about deceased not carrying valid
ticket or death due to run-over/knock-down while crossing railway
tracks.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the
following judgments :
(i) Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 ACJ 1441].
(ii) The order of this Court dated 05.09.2022 in First Appeal
No.551 of 2021 in case of Mrs. Seema wd/o. Sanjay Pathare
and Anr. Vs. Union of India.
(ii) Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan v. Union of India [2022 ACJ
175].
(iii) Ramdhan alias Namdeo and Anr. v. Union of India and
Anr. [2009(3) T.A.C. 193 (Bom.)].
7. Learned counsel Mr. Pandian, appearing for Railways, has
strenuously opposed the appeal contending that the nature of injuries
found on the dead-body speak volumes and it is obviously a case of
knock-down and run-over by railway, while illegally trespassing the
railway tracks. He submitted that in all documents relied by the
Appellants, including the Station Master memo dated 10.07.2013,
Report dated 10.07.2023, Inquest Panchnama dated 10.07.2013 and
the DRM report, it is clearly indicated that it is a case of run-over by
train while illegally trespassing/crossing the railway tracks. He
submitted that every time it is not possible to examine
Motorman/Guard and as such, the evidence will have to be
considered as a whole, while arriving at the conclusion. He has relied
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
upon the following judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court in support of his submission.
(i) Mrs. Pushpa Rajnath Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India,
through General Manager, Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai (in
First Appeal No.526 of 2019 order dated 14.06.2022).
(ii) Meenadevi Jaiprakash Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India,
through General Manager, Central Railway, CSTM, Mumbai (in
First Appeal No.290 of 2021 order dated 08.06.2022).
(iii) Shri. Sapdu Arjun Dhiuvare and Anr. v. Union of India
through General Manager, Central Railway, CSTM, Mumbai (in
First Appeal No.1407 of 2022 order dated 09.04.2025)
(iv) In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
Kamrunnissa v. Union of India (2019) 12 SCC 391.
8. Following points arise for my consideration :
(1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of
the train in question, on the relevant day? No.
(2) Whether the death of the deceased had occurred as
a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim
application? No.
(3) What amount of compensation is payable to
Appellants? No amount, as per final order.
REASONS
9. The Tribunal has already held on the basis of evidence on
record that the Appellants are dependents being husband and
children of the deceased under Section 123(b)(i) of the Railways Act.
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
ABOUT POINT NOS. 1 to 3.
10. These points are interconnected and therefore taken together.
11. I have carefully considered the evidence on record. Appellant
No.1 entered witness box and stated that on 11.07.2013 his wife
Dagubai wanted to go Kalyan and therefore came to Ulhasnagar
station, purchased railway ticket from Ulhasnagar to Kalyan and
boarded the local train going towards Kalyan. He stated that when
train reached between Vithalwadi and Kalyan stations she
accidentally fell down from running train and came under it. He has
stated that he was not traveling with his wife and has no personal
knowledge about accident as he was driving rickshaw being his
source of income. He stated that some ladies in the locality gathered
and were chatting about the accident and therefore he went to the
hospital and identified body of the deceased.
12. The Appellant was cross-examined and suggestion was given
that the deceased was crossing railway track and accident has
occurred at that time. The Appellant denied that suggestion.
13. The Station Master (SM) Memo dated 10.07.2013 indicates
that as per information received from traveling public at 10.45 hrs a
female passenger was reported found lying on the tracks at kms-
54/39/37 between VLDI and KYN stations who was hit by unknown
train while trespassing up line. The SM Memo indicates reported
injuries as cut from hip. The report made to the Senior Police
Inspector, Kalyan Police Station dated 10.07.2013 indicates that on
receiving memo, one unknown lady who was knocked down by
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
unknown train by kms-54/39/37 while crossing railway line was
found amputated into two parts from waist and was taken to
Rukminibai Hospital, Kalyan by ambulance. Copy of inquest
panchnama dated 10.07.2013 which started at 12.15 hrs indicates
that one unknown lady, crossing railway line between Vithalwadi to
Kalyan at kms-54/39/37 was knocked down by train and has been
cut into two parts from waist down. Inquest panchnama records that
right hand elbow wrist is crushed and the body is in two parts from
waist below. It is stated that the inside flesh has come out.
14. It is important to note that in the statement recorded before
the Railway police, Appellant No.1 Ramdas did not put forth any case
of purchase of ticket or boarding the train. However, it was stated
that his wife was running a bishi and was about to go to Vithalwadi
and Kalyan at her friend for bishi collection who resides near Birla
College, Kalyan. It is stated that when he was driving rickshaw, some
ladies in the area had gathered who were discussing about an
accident involving a lady. It is stated that for confirmation he went to
Rukminibai hospital and body of the deceased was identified. Perusal
of the Post Mortem report indicates that the body was cut into two
pieces from chest and abdominal level and all internal organs
including intestines had come out. There were crushed injuries on the
right waist and right hand, injuries were seen on all ribs and lungs
which were found ruptured.
15. In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified
that mere absence of ticket is not sufficient to conclude that the
deceased was not bona-fide traveler. However, such fact can be
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
proved by filing necessary affidavit and then the burden will shift
upon the Respondent - Railway. But it is also clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that case has to be decided in accordance with the
facts emerging from the attending circumstances. Therefore there
cannot be a straight-jacket formula for deciding dispute such as
present one.
16. In the judgments relied upon by the Appellants, claim has been
granted in the facts of those cases. However, in the judgments relied
upon by the Respondent - Railway, claim is rejected in peculiar facts
of those cases. Therefore the present case will have to be considered
on the facts of the present case.
17. The Trial Court has considered various reports and documents
referred above and has held that these reports are prepared by the
government officials in the regular course of their duties and their
genuineness and veracity cannot be doubted. It is further held that
these officials were not to gain or lose anything by recording false
facts about death of the deceased.
18. From the oral as well as documentary evidence considered
above in detail, it has to be held that the Appellants did not have any
personal knowledge about the happening of accident. In the SM
Memo, various reports and inquest panchnama, everywhere it is
indicated and recorded that an unknown lady was knocked down by
the local train. The SM Memo specifically indicates that information
received was that the person is found lying on the track between
VLDI and KYN stations has been hit by unknown train while crossing
FA-273-2021 (R-C) C.doc
tracks up line. The nature of injuries as described above indicates
that there are severe crush injuries and the body has been cut into
two pieces waist down. Even heart and lungs have been found
ruptured. Ribs have been found fractured. Organs near abdomenal
area such as stomach, intestines, liver, gall bladder, pancreas, spleen
and kidneys are all found ruptured. From the nature of injuries as
well as various reports on record, this appears to be a clear case of
run-over/knock-down by local train while crossing the railway tracks.
19. No ticket was recovered during inquest panchnama. Though
absence of valid ticket itself may not be sufficient to hold that the
deceased was not a bona-fide passenger, in view of the variance
between the Appellants' case in the Tribunal and statement of
Appellant No.1 recorded before the Railway Police, I do not find
myself persuaded to take any different view than what is taken by the
Tribunal.
20. Hence I hold that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger
and this is not an 'untoward incident' as provided u/s. 123(c) read
with 124-A of Railways Act,1989.
21. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. No interference is
required. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
