Bombay High Court
Smt. Malati Yashwant Panchal And Anr. vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 12 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:48134
2-FA-505-19.DOCX
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.505 OF 2019
1. Malati Yashwant Panchal
2. Master Soham Mangesh Panchal
(Mother and Son of the Deceased)
Room No.92, Maheshwar Patil Wadi,
Ganesh Chowk, Ghatla, Chembur,
Mumbai-71. ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India, Thr. General Manager
Central Railway, Having his office at 2 nd
floor, G. M. Building, D. N. Road,
Mumbai-1 ... Respondent
__________________________________________________
Mr. Vaneet Khosla, for the Appellants.
Mr. T. J. Pandian, for the Respondent.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : Jitendra Jain, J.
RESERVED : 10 November 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 November 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. This first appeal is filed by the original applicant challenging
order dated 29 June 2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal
Mumbai, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the
ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and
furthermore the accident did not fall within "untoward incident".
2-FA-505-19.DOCX
2. I have heard Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the
applicants/appellants and Mr. Pandian, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. The deceased was a carpenter and on 9 May 2012 while
travelling in train from Chembur to Panvel met with an accident
between Chembur and Govandi Station and on his being taken
to the hospital was declared as dead. Therefore, an application
was made to the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation of
Rs.4 Lakhs.
4. The issue which arises in appeal is whether the Tribunal was
justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellants/Applicants ?
5. The first ground on which the Tribunal dismissed the claim
is that the deceased was hit by a running train while crossing the
railway line and therefore, the contention that he fell from the
train was rejected. In this connection it is important to note that if
a person is hit by a running train then the Motormen would have
informed the Station Master of the next station about the incident.
In this case, in the Station Master's report of 9 May 2012 there is
no such reference that he was informed by the Motormen. In the
affidavit of the Station Master dated 19 July 2017, it is stated that
he was informed by an unknown passenger about the incident. It
is only in the written statement for the first time that a stand came
2-FA-505-19.DOCX
to be taken by the respondent that the Motormen informed about
the accident. This written statement has been verified not by the
Deputy Station Master, but by the Chief Commercial Manager.
Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent and confirmed by
the Tribunal that the deceased was hit by a running train cannot
be accepted.
6. Insofar as the reasoning with regard to the deceased being
bona fide passenger or not is concerned, admittedly no ticket was
found at the site of the incident. The applicants led evidence of
one Mr. Prashant Gawade, friend of the deceased, by filing an
affidavit of evidence on 8 February 2017. In the said affidavit he
has stated that he was travelling with the deceased and he
witnessed the punching of second class railway coupon ticket by
the deceased. He further stated that the railway coupon booklet
may have been lost in the untoward incident. He stated that there
was heavy rush in the train and therefore they were compelled to
stand near the compartment door and when the train was moving
from Chembur to Govandi the deceased accidentally fell from the
moving local train. He further stated that he got down from the
train at the next station and informed the police about the
incident and also informed deceased's brother and his relatives.
In his cross examination he has stated that the police did not
2-FA-505-19.DOCX
record his statement. He stated that after the incident he got
down at Govandi Railway Station and informed the Station
Master as well as the police and he reached the spot of incident
after about 30 minutes and the body of the deceased was lying at
a distance of about five feet from the track and a wallet was
recovered from the body of the deceased.
7. It is important to note that the incident occurred in May
2012 and in the Station Master's report there is no mention about
Mr. Gawade, friend of the deceased, informing the Station Master.
There is also no mention in the Station Master's report that Mr.
Gawade accompanied the police at the site of the incident. The
affidavit of Mr. Gawade has been filed after 5 years i.e. in
February 2017. At no point of time prior thereto Mr. Gawade's
presence is shown with the deceased while travelling from
Chembur to Panvel in any document. Even in the Inquest report,
the name of Mr. Gawade could not be found. Therefore, the
submission made by the appellants/applicants that they have
discharged the onus of the deceased being a bona fide passenger
by relying upon the affidavit of Mr. Gawade cannot be accepted.
The Tribunal is justified in rejecting the contention of the
deceased being a passenger with a valid ticket by discrediting the
evidence of Mr. Gawade. Therefore, since the deceased was not a
2-FA-505-19.DOCX
person travelling with a valid ticket, the applicants are not
entitled to any compensation.
8. Since I have held that the deceased, in the facts of the
present case, is not found to be a bona fide passenger, the issue of
nature of injuries whether from falling from a train or being hit by
a running train becomes inconsequential.
9. Appeal is dismissed with no costs.
(Jitendra Jain, J)
