Bombay High Court
Shri. Bapurao Pundalik Jadhav And ... vs The Union Of India Represented By The ... on 20 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:8491
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2015.
1. Shri. Bapurao Pundalik Jadhav ]
Age - 50 years, residing at - ]
Dattawadi, Bhim Nagar, Prakash Colony, ]
Barrack No. 9, Behind Gopal Hospital, ]
Ulhasnagar (East) - 421 001, District - Thane ]
2. Smt. Aruna Bapurao Jadhav ]
Age - 44 years, residing at above address ] ...Appellants.
Versus
The Union of India, ]
Represented by the General Manager, ]
Central Railway, Mumbai : C.S.T. ] ...Respondent.
------------
Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Pandian, Mr. Noorjahan Khan a/w Mr. Gautam Modanwal for the
Respondent.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 20th February, 2025.
Oral Judgment :
1. The First Appeal has been preferred by the Original Claimants
against the judgment dated 10 th June, 2014 passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the Claim Application.
2. The Application came to be filed by parents of the deceased
contending that the deceased while travelling from Titwala to Shahad ,
on 12th March, 2011 accidentally fell down from unknown local train
Sairaj 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2025 06:42:42 :::
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
between Titwala and Ambivali Station and suffered serious head
injuries. It was further pleaded that the deceased was travelling with
IInd class return journey ticket for travel from Shahad to Titwala stations
issued on 11th March, 2011, and the same was lost in the accident.
3. The Appellants examined Applicant No. 1 who is father of the
deceased and who deposed that on 11th March, 2011 in the morning,
the deceased had left home informing that he was going to Titwala to
attend catering order. On 11th March, 2011 at about 12:00 p.m., he
received the telephone from his son who told him that he had boarded
local train and that he will come home. It was further pleaded that the
deceased did not return home and upon making inquires, he was
informed that on 12th March, 2011, the deceased had fallen down from
unknown local between Titwala and Ambivali railway stations and had
expired. He had further deposed that his relative had informed him
that on 11th March, 2011, the deceased had met him at Shahad railway
station and in his presence, he had purchased II nd class return ticket
from Shahad to Titwala, which was kept in the shirt pocket of the
deceased and the same was lost in the accident. Along with the
evidence, the Claimants' produced the Station Master's memo, Inquest
Panchnama, Police Report, copy of the post-mortem report and the
statement given to the police.
4. The Claimants also examined one relative Sunil Dagdu Nikam as
Sairaj 2 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2025 06:42:42 :::
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
A.W.-2 who deposed that on 11th March, 2011, in the morning, he had
reached Shahad railway station at about 6:30 a.m. where he met
deceased who had purchased the return ticket for travel between
Shahad to Titwala and kept the same in his shirt pocket and that he had
seen him boarding the train for Titwala. The Respondent neither led
any evidence nor produced the Divisional Railway Manager's report. In
the cross-examination of A.W.-2, it was stated that the deceased was
not regularly seen by witness and on date of accident, he had seen him
purchasing the return ticket. A.W.-2 had further admitted in the cross-
examination that he had not given any statement to the Police.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant has taken this Court
through the record and proceedings and would submit that Station
Master's report records that the deceased was found lying on 12 th
March, 2011 at about 4:15 hours between Titwala and Ambavli
stations. He would further point out the Inquest Panchnama, in which it
is opined that the deceased fell down from an unknown local train and
hit by pole, and, no articles were found with the deceased. He would
further submit that evidence on record of A.W.-1 and A.W.-2
established that the deceased had expired in an "untoward incident"
and that he was a bona fide passenger. He would further point out the
Written Statement of the Railways wherein it is stated that the
deceased died due to his own carelessness and negligence by travelling
Sairaj 3 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2025 06:42:42 :::
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
on the footboard of unknown local train and met with an accident,
which is self-inflicted injury. He submits that Trial Court had
erroneously considered the Station Master's Memo as proof of the fact
that deceased had not fallen down from the running train and in view
thereof, has not gone into the question as to whether the deceased
was a bona fide passenger.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent would
submit that A.W.-2 in his cross-examination has deposed that on 11 th
March, 2011, in the morning at 6:30 a.m., he had seen the deceased
whereas the body was found on 12th March, 2011 at about 4:30 a.m.
lying near the railway tracks. He submits that therefore, it is neither
established that deceased died in an "untoward incident" nor that he
was a bona fide passenger. He would further submit that the fact that
A.W.-2 had not given any statement to the Police assumes significance.
7. The following points would arise for determination:-
(i) Whether death of the deceased had occasioned due to "untoward
incident" within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act,
1989?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
As to Point No. (i) :
8. A.W.-1 had deposed that on 11th March, 2011, the deceased had
left home saying that he was going to Titwala to attend the catering
Sairaj 4 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2025 06:42:42 :::
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
order and deposition of A.W.-2 is specific that he had met the deceased
on 11th March, 2011 at about 6.30 a.m. in morning. The Station Master's
memo records that the deceased was found lying between Titwala and
Ambivali railway stations at about 4.15 p.m. The Inquest Panchnama
opines that deceased fell down from unknown local train and was hit
by railway pole. What assumes significance is the averment in the
Written Statement of the Railways, which has accepted that the
deceased died due to carelessness and negligence while travelling on
the footboard of unknown local train. Once it is accepted by the
Railways that the deceased was travelling on footboard of local train,
the fact that he was found lying near the tracks on 12 th March, 2011 at
4:15 hours would lead to only one conclusion that the deceased had
fallen down from the train. The Tribunal had failed to consider the case
of Respondent-Railways that deceased was travelling on footboard of
local train. Further, as provided under the Railway Passengers (Manner
of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the Divisional
Railway Manager's report was not produced for consideration of the
Court. Accepting the case of Railways, that as the deceased was
travelling on the footboard, the death of deceased had occasioned due
to falling down from the train, and it is established that the deceased
had died in an "untoward incident", although it is sought to be
contended in the Written Statement that it is a self-inflicted injury. In
Sairaj 5 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2025 06:42:42 :::
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi1, the Apex Court had held that
there has to be something more than carelessness and negligence in
order to qualify as self-inflicted injury. Applying the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the present case, it is established by Appellants that
the deceased had expired by accidentally falling from the railway train.
As such, Point No. (i) is answered in favor of the Claimants.
As to Point No. (ii):-
9. The Tribunal has not gone into the question as to whether the
deceased was a bona fide passenger in view of its finding against the
Appellants on the aspect of "untoward incident". A.W.-2 had
specifically deposed that he had seen the deceased purchasing the
return ticket for travel between Shahad to Titwala from ticket counter
and the same was kept by deceased in his shirt pocket. The deposition
of A.W.-2 is in support of the case that the deceased had purchased a
ticket for travel and therefore, it does not make out any difference as
to whether A.W.-2 had met the deceased on 11 th March, 2011 in the
morning or on 12th March, 2012.
10. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to demolish
the deposition of purchase of ticket by deceased on 11 th March, 2011.
The Inquest Panchnama states that nothing was found with the body
of deceased, which is improbable as he would be carrying at least
1 [2018] 4 S.C.R. 417.
Sairaj 6 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2025 06:42:42 :::
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
nominal amount of cash. It needs to be noted that the deceased was
found lying on the tracks in early hours of morning and upon accidental
falling from the train, the possibility of articles having been lost cannot
be ruled out. The Apex Court in the decision of Rina Devi (supra) has
held that absence of ticket does not negative the claim of the
deceased being a bona fide passenger and once Affidavit of relevant
facts is filed, the initial burden stands discharged and onus shifts upon
the Railways. In the present case, A.W.-2 had specifically deposed that
he had seen deceased purchasing the return ticket and thus, the
Claimants discharged the initial burden. In the absence of any evidence
being led by the Railways and not even filing of the Divisional Railway
Manager's report, the Claimant's have established their case. Point No.
(ii) is answered in favor of Claimants'.
11. In light of the above, the following order is passed:
ORDER:
[i] First Appeal is allowed.
[ii] The impugned judgment dated 10 th June, 2014 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
[iii] The Respondent-Railways is directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- each to the Appellants' within
a period of 8 weeks from the date of furnishing the account
details by the Appellants' to the concerned department.
Sairaj 7 of 8
30 Fa-65-2015.doc
[iv] In event of default of payment as stipulated in
Clause No. [iii], the compensation to carry interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. from the date of order.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 8 of 8
