Bombay High Court
Shalubai Wd/O Ashok Shinde And Another vs Union Of India Thr. General Manager, ... on 26 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6568
1 fa585.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2021
1) Shalubai wd/o Ashok Shinde,
Age about 44 years, Occ. - Labour
2) Vikram s/o Ashok Shinde,
Age about 16 years, Occ. - Student,
(Appellant No.2 being a minor through
his mother, appellant No.1)
Both R/o Ukkadgaon (Makta),
Tahsil - Sonpeth, District - Parbhani. .... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Union of India,
through General Manager,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Mr. R.G. Bagul, Advocate for the appellants,
Ms. Neerja Chaubey, Advocate for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 26-06-2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The original claimants have preferred this appeal against the
judgment and order dated 25-10-2019 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Member (Judicial), Delhi, Circuit Bench, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the " Tribunal") in Application No.
2 fa585.21.odt
OA(IIu)/NGP/0146/2017, whereby the claim filed by them was
dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer to the parties
as per their denomination in the Tribunal.
3. The claimants' case is that on 11-04-2016, the deceased Ashok
Shankar Shinde was travelling in a general coach/compartment from
Parbhani to Nanded in Train No. 17619 by purchasing a valid railway
journey ticket. When the train reached near Limbagaon Railway
Station, the deceased received a strong jerk, due to which he fell from
the train, sustained injuries, and was admitted to the Medical College
and Hospital, Nanded, where the primary treatment was given to him.
On the same day, he was referred and admitted to Dr. Shankarrao
Chavan Government Medical College and Hospital, Nanded. Then, on
12-04-2016, he was referred to the S.R.T.R. Medical College and
Hospital, Ambejogai, where he was admitted till 20-04-2016 and
discharged on his request. Thereafter, on 17-06-2006, he succumbed to
the said injuries at home.
4. Claimant No. 1 is the widow, and Claimant No. 2 is the son of
the deceased. Due to the death of the deceased, they suffered a loss
and, therefore, they had filed the claim application before the Tribunal,
3 fa585.21.odt
alleging that due to the occurrence of the untoward incident, the
deceased died and, thus, the respondent-railway is liable to pay the
compensation to them.
5. The respondent-railway resisted the claim on the ground that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. It denied that he
was travelling by the said train from Parbhani to Nanded and fell from
the train due to the strong jerk he sustained. Therefore, it is contended
that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was having
any authority to travel from Parbhani to Nanded. The deceased had
violated the safety rules framed by the railway authorities; therefore,
the claimants are not entitled to the relief as claimed.
6. It is further averred that as per the statement of the eyewitness,
i.e., the Guard of the said train, on the day of the incident, one person
fell from the train while he was boarding the train at Limbagaon
Railway Station, and the Loco Pilot of the station confirmed the same.
The deceased died two months after the alleged incident. Hence, it is
contended that the claimants are not entitled to compensation, and
therefore, it is urged that the claim be rejected.
4 fa585.21.odt
7. Having considered the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal
had framed issues. Pursuant to the issues, the claimants examined
claimant No. 1 and reiterated their case. On the other hand, the
railway authorities examined two witnesses. Both parties have
produced documents on record. After considering the evidence on
record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application, holding that
the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger of the train. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants
have preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Mr. R.G. Bagul, learned Advocate for the claimants and
Ms. Neerja Chaubey, learned Advocate for the respondents. Perused the
record, impugned judgment, and the decisions in the cases of Doli Rani
Saha v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 656 and Union of India v. Rina Devi,
AIR 2018 SC 2362. Having considered the submissions and record, the
following points arise for determination.
(i) Whether the claimants prove that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger of Train No.17619 on the relevant date with
a valid railway journey ticket?
(ii) Whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a result
of an untoward incident as alleged in the claim application
5 fa585.21.odt
within the meaning of Section 124-A read with Section
123(c) of the Railways Act ?
(iii) Whether the impugned judgment is just and proper ?
(iv) Whether any interference is required in the impugned
judgment ?
Point No.(i) :
9. Mr. R.G. Bagul, learned Advocate for the original claimants,
contended that claimant No. 1 in her evidence categorically deposed
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and while
boarding the train near Limbagaon, he fell from the train and sustained
injuries. Claimant No.1, by filing the affidavit, has discharged the
burden that lies on her to show that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger. However, the Tribunal erred in holding that claimants failed
to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. He further
canvassed that the respondent did not dispute that the deceased
sustained injuries in the said accident. He submitted that the claimants
are entitled to compensation.
10. To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha (supra) and argued that the
claimants' case is covered by the mandate laid down in the above case,
hence urged for allowing the appeal.
6 fa585.21.odt
11. On the other hand, Ms. Neerja Chaubey, learned Advocate for the
respondent, has strenuously argued that the deceased was not holding
a valid railway journey ticket; therefore, it cannot be said that he was a
bona fide passenger of the train. Secondly, the deceased was at fault as,
while boarding the train, he fell from the train and sustained the
injuries. Therefore, due to the fault of the deceased, the claimants are
not entitled to compensation. Lastly, she canvassed that no evidence or
material was brought on record to demonstrate that the deceased
succumbed to the said injuries and, therefore, she urged for dismissal
of the appeal.
12. It is pertinent to note that the railway authorities are not
disputing the occurrence of the incident at Limbagaon. Only their
defence is that the deceased did not have a valid railway journey ticket,
and the second point is that no document is produced on record to
show that the deceased died due to said injuries.
13. While determining the controversy in the matter, I would like to
reproduce para Nos. 12 to 12.3, 15, 16, 19 and 20 of the decision in
Doli Rani Saha (supra).
"12. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal against
the decision of the Tribunal. By its judgment dated 07-01-2024,
the High Court held that :
7 fa585.21.odt
12.1 From the material available on record, it appeared that the
body of the deceased was found lying near the railway track .
However, nothing on record indicated that the deceased was
travelling as a passenger on the train;
12.2 The post-mortem report indicated that the death took
place between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before the
conduct of the post-mortem, which was on 9 September 2003 at
1:30 pm. From this, it cannot conclusively be held that the
deceased died on 5 September 2003; and
12.3 The report filed by the IO is not supported by substantive
material. Since he had no personal knowledge regarding the
cause of death, his report cannot be accepted as evidence of the
fact that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on the train
in question.
13 & 14 .......
15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial
pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen
that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on
the train in question. In Rina Devi, a two-Judge Bench of this
Court considered the question of the party on which the burden
of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found
on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would
be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of
the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then
shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence
of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court
is reproduced below:
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured
or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for
compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence
of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the
claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be
on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of
the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and
the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the
attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with
from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal
position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit
stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the
investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the
deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by
a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted
8 fa585.21.odt
to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the
presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the
train in question was not rebutted.
17 and 18 .......
19. Seventy-two hours prior to the conduct of the post-
mortem would be about 1:30 pm on 6-12-2003. This would be
about thirteen to fourteen hours after the deceased fell off the
train. Conclusions in post-mortem reports as to the time of
death are approximations. This is also indicated by the fact that
they usually provide a window of time in which the deceased
may have died. A margin of error of about half a day in cases
where compensation is at issue is not disproportionate, where
the evidence is otherwise corroborated by the material on
record. In this case, the estimation as to the time of death in the
post-mortem report differs from the time at which the IO stated
that the deceased fell off the train by about half a day. The report
of the IO otherwise corroborated that the deceased fell from the train.
Further, the post-mortem report also stated that the deceased
sustained ante-mortem injuries due to blunt force. Hence, from
the material on record, it can be concluded that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger on the train in question and that he sustained
grave injuries leading to his death, due to his fall from the train .
Compensation is therefore due to the appellant.
D. Compensation and interest
20. The decision in Rina Devi holds as follows on the aspect
of compensation:
"19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be
payable as applicable on the date of the accident with
interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time
on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the
amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as
on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will
be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will
not affect the awards which have already become final and
where limitation for challenging such awards has expired,
this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of
delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon and Kalandi
Charan Sahoo stand explained accordingly. The four-Judge
Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo holds the
field on the subject and squarely applies to the present
situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the
accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to
give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if
compensation as provided on the date of award of the
Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the
higher of the two amounts has to be given."
9 fa585.21.odt
14. A bare perusal of the above judgment indicates that on filing of
the affidavit by the claimants stating the relevant facts of the case, the
initial burden on them could be discharged. Then, the burden will shift
to the railways to prove that he was not a bona fide passenger on the
train, if not discharged. Then, the presumption that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger on the train in question remains unrebutted. It was
further observed that in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata,
(1976) 1 SCC 289, the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically observed
that the Railways Act was enacted to give the effect of the mandate of
beneficial legislation i.e. for the benefits of the bona fide passengers
who had sustained injuries in the untoward incident.
15. On perusal of the affidavit of claimant No. 1, it reveals that in
her testimony, she categorically deposed that on 11-04-2016, the
deceased was holding a railway journey ticket and travelling in a
general coach/compartment from Parbhani to Nanded. Near
Limbagaon, due to a strong jerk, he fell from the railway and sustained
severe injuries. Then she further candidly deposed that her husband
died at home due to injuries suffered by him in the said untoward
incident. Her statement was neither challenged nor denied on the point
that her husband died due to the injuries he suffered. Thus, in view of
the mandate in Doli Rani Saha and Rina Devi (supra), the claimants have
10 fa585.21.odt
discharged the initial burden that lies on them by filing the affidavit,
which states the relevant facts about the deceased's travel in the said
train. Therefore, the burden was shifted on the respondent, the
railways, to discharge the same; however, the railway authorities failed
to adduce any cogent evidence to discharge the said burden. Moreover,
as per the dictum laid down in Rina Devi (supra), the mere absence of a
ticket with the injured or deceased would not negate the claim that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger. However, the railway authority
failed to adduce any cogent evidence to demonstrate that the deceased
was not holding a valid ticket or that he was not a bona fide passenger
of the train. In such circumstances, the presumption that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger on the train in question remains unrebutted.
16. As against the witnesses of the respondents, i.e. R.W.1
Bhanupratap Singh and R.W.2-Arvind Kumar Mahato, in their
testimonies, deposed that at Limbagaon, when the train departed, at
that time, the deceased, while boarding the said train, fell from the
train and sustained injuries. Their testimonies themselves reveal that
the deceased sustained injuries when he was boarding the train, which
means the railway authorities do not dispute the said fact.
11 fa585.21.odt
17. It also appears that the railway authorities had conducted the
enquiry in respect of the untoward incident. During the enquiry, the
authorities found that the deceased had suffered severe injuries due to
falling from Train No.17619. However, the railway officers only
observed that the deceased was not holding a valid railway journey
ticket, and therefore, the railway was not responsible for satisfying the
claim. The form No.-I (under Rule-4), dated 11.04.2016, along with
the report, indicates that the deceased had one ticket and he sustained
an injury in the said Untoward incident. The report also shows that the
deceased had suffered the injuries while he was boarding the train at
Limbagaon. The evidence of R.W. 1 and R.W. 2, along with the report,
categorically denotes that on the day of the incident, the deceased had
sustained injuries while he was boarding the train. Thus, having
considered the evidence of claimant No. 1 and in view of the mandate
laid down in Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha (supra), it appears that by
filling an affidavit stating the relevant facts of the incident, the
deceased was travelling in the train, the claimants discharged the
initial burden that lies on them. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train in question
and he sustained the injuries in the said untoward incidents. Hence, I
answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
12 fa585.21.odt
Point Nos.(ii) to (iv) :
18. It appears from the record that the untoward incident occurred
on 11-04-2016; however, the deceased died on 17-06-2016, and,
therefore, the learned Advocate for the respondent vehemently
contended that no evidence or material was brought on record to
demonstrate that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained to him
in the accident. However, on perusal of the affidavit of claimant No. 1,
it appears that in paragraph No. 3, the claimant has categorically
deposed that the deceased/her husband died on 17-06-2016 at home
due to injuries sustained to him in an untoward incident that occurred
on 11-04-2016. The said testimony was neither challenged nor denied
by the railways, and the same remained unchallenged. Thus, there is
no reason to disbelieve the said testimony. Furthermore, it has come
on record that the deceased was initially admitted to Dr. Shankarrao
Chavan Government Medical College and Hospital, Nanded, on
11-04-2016. A bare perusal of the Discharge Card shows that a history
of a railway accident dated 11-04-2016 was mentioned. On local
examination, the doctor noticed multiple fractures on the right leg, left
femur, thigh and right-hand tibia of the deceased. It was also
mentioned that the patient was a resident of Parli and wanted to
continue the treatment in Ambajogai or Latur. So he was discharged on
12.04.2016. In the Discharge Card, details are mentioned about the
13 fa585.21.odt
operation as well as the treatment suggested and provided to the
deceased. Thereafter, he was admitted to the S.R.T.R. Medical College
and Hospital in Ambejogai, where he remained for nine days, until
April 20, 2016. In the discharge card, Injuries sustained by him and
treatment given to him were mentioned. He had sustained injuries to
his right hand and multiple fractures, including in his right leg.
19. Both the Discharge Cards also demonstrate that in the said
incident the deceased had sustained severe injuries on his person and
testimony of claimant No. 1 shows that he had succumbed to them and
said testimony has remained unchallenged and, therefore, from the
material on record it can be inferred that the deceased died due to the
injuries sustained to him in the said accident or that injuries leads to
his death.
20. It also appears from the claim application that the deceased was
a poor labourer; applicant No.1, the widow, is illiterate, and applicant
No.2 is their minor son; therefore, they could not afford the medical
expenses for treatment of the deceased and at their own risk, deceased
was discharged from the hospital.
14 fa585.21.odt
21. Since the provisions for compensation in the Railways Act are a
beneficial piece of legislation, in my opinion, it should receive a liberal
and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one.
Therefore, considering the mandate of the beneficial legislation and
advancing the object and intent of the statute, in my view, it would be
proper to provide compensation to the victim of the untoward incident
by giving a liberal approach.
22. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the claimant in
its proper perspective and erred in holding that the claimants failed to
prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and, therefore, held
that the claimants failed to produce documents on record to show that
deceased died due to the injuries sustained to him and, thus, dismissed
the claim application. However, as observed above, it is evident that
claimants have filed an affidavit, thereby discharging the burden that
lies on them. However, the railway authorities failed to discharge the
said burden. Therefore, it appears that the findings reached by the
Tribunal are neither just nor proper; based on the said findings, the
judgment cannot be sustained, hence, interference is required in the
appellate jurisdiction. Thus, I answer point Nos. 2 and 4 in the
affirmative and 3 in the negative.
15 fa585.21.odt
23. It further appears from the record that claimant No.1 is the
widow, more than 50 years old, and claimant No.2 is a son. Therefore,
as per the request of the learned Advocate for the claimants, it would
be proper to grant 60% compensation amount to the widow and 40%
to the son.
24. As a result, I pass the following order :
(i) The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
(ii) The claimants are entitled to the compensation quantified at
Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs). The said
compensation shall be paid by the respondent to the
claimants by 31-08-2025, failing which the compensation
amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ of 8%
per annum, until the payment is made.
(iii) It is made clear that claimant No. 1, being the widow, is
entitled to 60% of the compensation amount and claimant
No.2, being the son, is entitled to 40% of the compensation
amount.
(iv) The respondent is directed to pay 60% and 40% of the
compensation amount to claimant Nos. 1 and 2,
respectively, in their bank accounts upon their furnishing
their bank account details to the respondent.
( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/07/2025 14:20:43
