Bombay High Court
Mohd. Gulam Kadir S/O. Babu Miya And Anr vs Union Of India Thr.General Manager, ... on 22 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:3564
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2023.
1) Mohd. Gulam Kadir S/o. Babu Miya ]
Age 65 years, Occ. Labour, ]
2) Aaman Khatun W/o. Kadir ]
Age 60 years, Occ. Housewife, ]
Both residing at : 14 B, Indraprasth Nagar, ]
Near Mayadevi Nagar, Rotary Bhavan, ]
Near Sane Guruji Colony, Jalgaon, Dist. ]
Jalgaon, M.S. ] ...Appellants.
Versus
Union of India, ]
Through General Manager, ]
Central Railway, ]
CSMT, Mumbai - 400 001. ] ...Respondent.
------------
Mr. Vasant N. More for Appellant.
Ms. Leena Patil for Respondent.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : January 22, 2025.
Oral Judgment :
1. The First Appeal has been filed at the instance of the original
Claimants challenging the judgment dated 8th September, 2022 passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No. OA (II
u)/MCC/0969/2014 rejecting the claim on the ground that the
deceased has died due to self-inflicted injuries.
Sairaj 1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:32:22 :::
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
2. The facts of the case are that the Claim Application came to be
filed by parents of the deceased pleading that on 9 th May, 2011, the
deceased while travelling from Allahabad to Pune by Pune-Patna
Express, fell down from the running train near Nyaydongri Railway
Station, District - Nashik and having sustained injuries expired. It was
further pleaded that second-class railway ticket was purchased for
Rs.225/- and ticket number was also reproduced in the Application.
3. The Application came to be resisted by the Railways contending
that as per DRM's report, the death of the deceased occurred due to
his own criminal act as he was half asleep when the accident took place
and suffered self-inflicted injuries and thus, is not an untoward incident
and does not fall within the purview of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989.
4. The parties went to trial and the Appellant No.1 examined
himself and Respondent-Railways examined the Deputy Station Master,
Shri R. R. Chavan. The Appellant No.1 produced the railway ticket,
Accident Memo of Station Master, Accidental Death Report of Railway
Police Station, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and the Death
Certificate showing the cause of death as well as the voters card to
show the dependency of the Applicant.
5. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 8 th September,
2022 framed the necessary issues including the issue as to whether the
Sairaj 2 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:32:22 :::
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
death of deceased has occurred as a result of untoward incident, which
was answered against the Applicants. As far as the dependency of the
deceased and the bona fide passenger is concerned, the same were
answered in favor of Applicant. While answering the issue as to
whether deceased was a bona fide passenger, though the Tribunal held
that he was a bona fide passenger, it further held that merely holding
the ticket does not dissolve the deceased from following his obligation
in following the Railway Safety Rules and Regulations. On the issue as
to whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of
untoward incident, the Tribunal held that there is no cogent or direct
evidence of deceased falling down from the running train. It further
held that RW-1, in his cross-examination, has stated that he was not
informed of incident by any Guard or Motorman, but was informed by
Trackman. The Tribunal further considered the report of Railway
Protection Force which stated that deceased was travelling by sitting
near the open door, which was also the statement given by the brother
of the deceased and co-traveller and held that the incident was not an
untoward incident as it was a self-inflicted injury. The Tribunal held that
Applicants have not discharged the burden to establish that the
deceased fell down from the train, and dismissed the claim.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant has taken this Court
through the documents produced, such as Accidental Death Report,
Sairaj 3 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:32:22 :::
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and the Investigation Report
of Government Railway Police, in order to demonstrate that
documents indicate that incident was an untoward incident as
deceased had fallen down from the running train. He submits that
recovery of the railway ticket as noted in the Inquest Panchanama
established that Applicant was a bona fide passenger. He submits that
due to rush in the train, the deceased was travelling near the door of
the general compartment, and it cannot be said that it was a self-
inflicted injury. He relies upon the decision in the case of Doli Rani
Saha v. Union of India1.
7. Per contra learned counsel appearing for Respondent would
submit that DRM's report of RPF as well as statement of the
deceased's brother would show that deceased was travelling near the
door of the general compartment of the train and under the influence
of sleep, he fell and came under the wheels of the train and died. She
submits that as the deceased was negligent, the same does not
constitute an untoward incident for compensation to be paid.
8. The following point arises for determination:
(i) Whether the death of the deceased has occurred by reason of an
untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989, making railways liable for payment of
1 Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024 dtd. 9th August, 2024.
Sairaj 4 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:32:22 :::
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
compensation under Section 124A of Railways Act.
As to Point No. (i) :
9. In order to substantiate their claim, the Appellants have
examined Appellant No.1 and has deposed as regards the travel of
deceased on 9th May, 2011 from Allahabad to Pune holding a valid
railway ticket. It is specifically deposed that due to overcrowding in
general compartment, the deceased fell down from the train in
between K. M. Pole No. 305/14-16 of Railway Station Nyaydongri,
District - Nashik. The documents which were produced on record
would indicate that the accident had taken place before 6.30 a.m. and
body of the deceased was found lying near the railway track. In event,
the accident had not taken place by reason of falling from the train, the
only other eventuality due to which such accident could take place is
being hit by local train. It is not the case of Railways that the deceased
was hit by any local train. The deceased was holding a valid railway
ticket and the statement given by brother of deceased to the police
stating that the deceased was travelling near the door indicates that
the deceased had boarded the train and the accident has taken place
due to falling down from the train. The Spot Panchanama and the
Inquest Panchanama would indicate that the body was found lying
between the K.M. No. 305/14-16 at Railway Station Nyayadongri with
injuries mentioned therein.
Sairaj 5 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:32:22 :::
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
10. As far as the recovery of railway ticket is concerned, there is no
dispute that deceased was a bona fide passenger. The defence of the
Railways is based on DRM Report that the accident occurred as the
deceased was travelling near the compartment of the door and had
dozed off and thus, the case is of self-inflicted injury. Section 123(c)(2)
defines an untoward incident as the accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers. Section 124A of the Railway Act
provides for payment of compensation on account of 'no fault liability'
for the loss occasioned by the death of passenger. The proviso to
Section 124A carves out an exception to payment of 'no fault
compensation' in event of clauses (a) to (e) mentioned therein and
clause (b) provides for self-inflicted injury. The Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs. Rina Devi 2 has held that concept of "self-inflicted
injury" would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere
negligence of any particular degree. Apart from the fact that Railways
has failed to lead any evidence to establish that the falling down from
the train was result of the deceased having dozed off, the decision in
Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) would rule out such act as self-
inflicted injury. The oral as well as the documentary evidence on
record, more than sufficiently establishes that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger travelling from Allahabad to Pune and had fallen
2 AIR 2018 SC 2362.
Sairaj 6 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:32:22 :::
35 Fa-240-2023.doc
down from the train. As such, it is an untoward incident within the
meaning of Section 123(c)(2), for which compensation is payable under
Section 124A of Railways Act. Though the claim was for compensation
of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the year 2014, following the decision of Doli Rana
Saha (supra), the Appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.
8,00,000/-. The issue is accordingly answered in favor of Appellant.
11. Resultantly, the following order is passed:
:ORDER:
[i] First Appeal is allowed.
[ii] The judgment dated 8th September, 2022 is hereby
set aside.
[iii] The Railways are directed to pay compensation of Rs.
8,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from the date of
uploading of this order.
[iv] The Appellants to furnish the account details to
Railway Authorities within a period of one week from
today.
[v] In event, the amount is not paid within a period of 8
weeks not arising out of default on part of Appellants to
furnish the bank details, the Railways will be liable to pay
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. till the payment or
realization.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 7 of 7
