Bombay High Court
Baby Wd/O Mahadeorao Ingle vs Union Of India, Through Its General ... on 17 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:2937
20.fa.1245.23.jud.doc 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1245 OF 2023
Appellant : Baby wd/o Mahadeorao Ingle,
Age 68 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Ward No.4, Shivaji Chowk, Khel Choudhar,
Karajgaon, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati.
- Versus -
Respondent : Union of India,
Through its General Manager,
Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. D.S. Khushalani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. Neerja Choubey, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
02. Admit.
03. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
25/10/2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" for short) thereby
rejecting the claim application of the appellant on account of unfortunate
death of her son-Sandeep Mahadeorao Ingle who died in a train accident
on 10/09/2018.
04. The facts giving rise to the case in a nutshell are as under:
(i) Deceased-Sandeep originally belonged to Karajgaon, Tahsil
Chandur Bazar, District Amravati. He was residing in Mumbai
on account of his service. On the fateful day i.e. 10/09/2018,
while he was travelling from Ghatkopar to Badlapur via
Kalyan, he accidentally fell down from a running train
between Kalyan Railway Station and Shahad Railway Station
and died. Therefore, an application for compensation under
Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) was filed.
(ii) The application was opposed by the Railway Administration
on the ground that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger
and the alleged accident has not occurred as a result of the
deceased falling from the train. The authority came up with a
case that the deceased, while crossing the railway track, got
hit by a train and died. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on
the ground that the spot-panchnama does not speak anything
about the fact that the deceased possessed a railway ticket,
which is the first document in time. The Tribunal also held
that the dead body of the deceased was found at about 23:20
hours, whereas the ticket was purchased at 18:52 hours. As
per the details mentioned in the ticket, the journey did not
start until 19:52 hours and therefore, the ticket is not valid as
the same was valid for only an hour. Apart from raising
questions, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger,
the Tribunal has also opined that the deceased as a result of
getting hit by the train while crossing the railway track, since
his dead-body was found on the track.
05. Mr. Khushalani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant vehemently submits that though the spot-panchnama does not
depict about the ticket which was possessed by deceased-Sandeep but
inquest-panchnama and the area report of the department, which was
prepared by the Railway Administration itself goes to show that the
deceased had a ticket to travel from Ghatkopar to Badlapur. It is also
contended that though the dead-body was found between Kalyan and
Shahad Station but the turning point of the train towards Badlapur is also
between Kalyan and Shahad Station. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal
is erroneous.
06. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent objected the appeal on the ground that the judgment of the
Tribunal is very well reasoned and the inquiry conducted by the R.P.F and
by the railway administration shows that the deceased died as a result of
getting hit by by a train while crossing the track. She supported the
judgment of the Tribunal and sought rejection of the appeal.
07. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties
and having gone through the impugned judgment, spot-panchnama, A.D.R.
and inquest-panchnama, it transpires that at 23:20 hours, the dead-body of
deceased-Sandeep was found on the railway track between Kalyan and
Shahad. Accordingly, the R.P.F reached on the spot and spot-panchnama
was prepared in presence of two panchas.
08. No doubt, the spot-panchnama does not mention about the
deceased possessing a ticket but the fact remains that the inquest-
panchnama and the A.D.R. prepared by the R.P.F., Kalyan Railway Police
Station mention that the ticket possessed by deceased-Sandeep was for
travelling from Ghatkopar to Badlapur. It appears that the spot-panchnama
is prepared in a printed form and the columns have been filled up with a
pen. There is no column in the panchnama for mentioning regarding
possession of a ticket by the passenger.
09. Ms. Choubey, learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon
the statement in the printed form of spot-panchnama that nothing
suspicious was found. This argument is to be discarded firstly on the
ground that this is a printed form, which has been used by filling the blank
spaces and secondly, it says that nothing suspicious was found. It does
speak anything about the questino whether the deceased possessed a ticket
or not. More so, the family of the deceased is from Chandur Bazar which is
more than 600 kms away from the spot of incident. Therefore, there is no
chance of manipulation by placing the ticket between the time of
preparation of spot-panchnama and inquest-panchnama or filing of A.D.R.
Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was not
a bona fide traveller is erroneous.
10. This takes me to the submission of the learned Counsel for the
respondent that the deceased died due to a dash given by an unknown
train while crossing the railway track, I have gone through the inquest-
panchnama, wherein it has been mentioned that the panchas disclosed that
the deceased died while crossing the railway track. Firstly, it is not the case
that those panchas have seen the accident. Secondly, when the deceased
was possessing a ticket for travelling from Ghatkopar to Badlapur, there
was no reason for the deceased to alight from the train between Kalyan
and Shahad. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument of the
learned Counsel for the respondent.
11. Needless to mention that the track between Kalyan and
Badlapur is different than the track from Kalyan to Shahad. Albeit, there is
a turning point for the train to proceed on Badlapur track which is between
Kalyan and Shahad and the dead-body was found on the railway track
between Kalyan and Shahad. Since, the deceased was possessing a ticket
from Ghatkopar to Badlapur, a reasonable reference can be drawn that the
deceased might have fallen down from the train at the turning point of the
train itself and therefore, this aspect has not been considered by the
Tribunal. Thus, this finding is also required to be set aside.
12. Since, the deceased was holding the ticket from Ghatkopar to
Badlapur and the dead-body was found on the railway track between
Kalyan and Shahad, the deceased is entitled for lump-sum compensation of
Rs.8.00 Lakhs along with interest. Since the accident occurred on
10/09/2018 and entitlement of interest on compensation came into force
from 01/01/2017 i.e. after the amendment in the Act, in the result, the
following order is passed:
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) towards compensation along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
application to the appellant, within four months from today.
III. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.W. Chandwani, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/03/2025 20:10:22
