Bombay High Court
Shri Santosh S/O Pandurang Ther And ... vs Union Of India, Through The General ... on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10373
1 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2019
1. Shri Santosh s/o Pandurang Ther, aged about
67 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
2. Sau. Tara @ Pushpa w/o Santoshrao Ther,
aged about 59 years, Occ. Housewife.
Both r/o at post ward no. 3, Shivaji Colony,
Nachangaon, Pulgaon, Tq. Deoli, Dist.
Wardha. (M.S.) 442 302
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Union of India, through the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST.
... RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________
Ms Gayatri R. Diwe, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate for respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
CLOSED ON : 12.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By this appeal, the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment
and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
2 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
('the Tribunal') in Claim Application no. OA(LLU)/NGP0221/2017 decided
on 08.07.2019, whereby claim application has been dismissed, has preferred
the present appeal.
3. Present Appellants are the father and mother of deceased Nilesh.
It is the case of the present appellants that their son was traveling from
Pulgaon to Badnera by Balharshah-Wardha Bhusawal Passenger Train
No.51198 (UP) by purchasing the valid ticket. However, during the traveling,
he met with an accident and succumbed to the grievous head injury.
4. According to the respondents as per the Divisional Railway
Manager (DRM) report dated 07.06.2018, enquiry has been conducted and in
which it was revealed that victim deceased Nilesh was not having valid
railway ticket. It is not established that due to the sudden jerk of the train
deceased was fallen down as there is no eye-witnesses for the said incident.
Hence, it is stated that Railway is not responsible for the death of Nilesh and
accordingly, supported the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. In view of this, the appellants has filed application under Section
16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation of Rs.8
lakh along with the interest. However, the Tribunal without considering their
submission and evidence brought on record, by impugned order dated
08.07.2019 dismissed the claim application of the appellants.
6. In the light of rival submission, I have perused the record and
3 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
the documents on which the appellants has relied upon. I also go through the
case laws which are relied upon by the parties in the matter.
7. At the outset it will be necessary to see the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi AIR 2018
SC 2362 , particularly in paragraphs 16.6 and 17.4, observed thus :
"16.6. We are unable to uphold the above view as the
concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to
inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any
particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking
the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be
done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We
may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar 2017 (13)
SCALE 652 laying down that plea of negligence of the
victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault
theory' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the
course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an
'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation
and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A
merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a
contributing factor.
Re: (iii) Burden of Proof When Body Found on Railway
Premises - Definition of Passenger :
...
17.4. 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
4 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
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)
8. So also, the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Suhas
wd/o Sanjay Wankhade and ors. vs. Union ov India 2023(4) ALL MR 470 ,
wherein this Court in paragraph 15 observed as under :
"15.Now by considering the definition of untoward
incident, it is to be seen whether the deceased was
travelling by the train, which was carrying the
passengers and whether he was holding a valid train
ticket. Admittedly, the ticket was not found either
with the deceased when he was found in an injured
condition nor it was produced subsequently by the
relatives or the claimants before the Investigating
Authority. So, admittedly no ticket was produced in
support of the contention. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in Union of India ..V/s.. Rina Devi (supra), has
already dealt with this issue and held that merely
because the ticket was not found with the deceased
is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger. By referring the judgment of
Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh ..V/s.. Union
of India, reported in (2015) A.C.J. 171, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that initial onus to prove the death
or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the
claimant. However, such onus can shift on Railways
if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the
claimant. Merely, because the ticket was not found
with the deceased is not sufficient to negate his
claim. There is possibility of misplacing the said
ticket during the untoward incident. Considering the
same, in the present case also, the injured has
sustained the injuries while boarding in the train.
The possibility that ticket is misplaced during
untoward incident or it is destroyed in the said
incident cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the
contention of the Railway that deceased was not a
5 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
bona fide passenger is not acceptable merely on the
basis of the fact that the ticket was not found with
the deceased. Mere absence of ticket with such
injured or deceased will not negative the claim that
he was a bona fide passenger. The claimants have
adduced the evidence by filing an affidavit of
relevant facts, and therefore, burden will then shift
on the Railway and the issue can be decided on the
fact shown on the attending circumstances. No
evidence is adduced by the Railway to show that the
deceased was travelling without ticket. Thus,
contention of the Railway that the deceased was not
a bona fide passenger is without any evidence."
9. Keeping in mind the above said legal position, I had gone
through the record and found that the accident in the present case,
admittedly, occurred on 24.05.2017. Gateman Neeraj at about 5.44 hours
informed to Deputy Station Master about lying of dead body of one unknown
person near Nimbhoara Bodkha up line railway station, Pole no.718/9-11 and
5 feet away from the railway line. In between 6.00 to 7.00 am the same was
informed to the Police Station. Accordingly, accidental death report was
registered at Railway Police Station, Badnera. While preparing the spot
panchanama Rs.60/- was found in the pocket of the deceased however no
railway ticket was found from the deceased. Thereafter the spot panchanama
and inquest panchanama was done and the body was referred for post-
mortem. According to the post-mortem report dated 24.05.2017, the cause of
death was shown as 'due to head injury.'
10. Before the Tribunal Santosh (AW1), father of deceased stated
that cousin brother of deceased namely Arvind dropped the deceased in night
6 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
time at Pulgaon Railway Station as deceased was willing to meet his elder
brother's wife at Amravati via Badnera.
11. Arvind (AW2) stated that on 23.05.2017 at night he has dropped
deceased at Pulgaon railway station and by purchasing valid ticket, deceased
was boarded in the train to reach at Amravati via Badnera.
12. In support of defence the respondent has relied upon the
evidence of RW1 Umesh Omprakash Gohiya who was working as Deputy
Station Master. After going through his evidence, it is crystal clear that this
witness specifically stated that he received information through gateman
Neeraj at about 05.44 hours that one dead body of unknown person was
lying by the side of up line. He has further stated that before 05.44 hours the
following trains were passed from Talni Railway Station.
1. Goods train Bajwa BTPN 04.53 hrs.
2. Goods train MFSG 04.16 hrs.
3. Super Express 22866 through 03.40 hrs.
4 Super Express 12656 through 03.08 hrs.
13. The RW2 (Prabhash Kumar) working as a Guard of train
No.51198 Ballarshah Bhusawal passenger states that he was working as a
Guard at train no.51198 UP BallarshahBhusawal Passenger. According to him,
train reached to the Talni railway station at mid-night. From his evidence, it
is clear that trains were traveled during the night hours and more
7 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
particularly, train no.51198 UP Ballarshah-Bhusawal Passenger was also
traveled in mid-night hours.
14. Learned Tribunal in absence of any evidence inferred that in
view of nearby residence/place of work of deceased from the spot of incident,
there is every possibility that deceased being working in adjoining fields
which are required to approach by crossing railway line was dashed by
unknown train. Therefore, held that death of the deceased is not established
due to an accidental fall amounting an untoward incident. Hence, not
entitled for compensation.
15. The judicial note can be taken of the fact that no agriculturist in
the mid-night, do any labour work in the field. Therefore, there was no
reason for the deceased to cross the railway line in the night hours to reach
any particular agriculture field for doing his work. Hence the stand taken by
the respondent and relied by learned Tribunal to reach to the conclusion that
same does not amount to untoward incident is not plausible in the matter.
16. The other contention of the respondent that under Section 124A
of the Railway Act, the legal heirs of deceased are not entitle for
compensation from railway administration as the present case falls under
category of 'self inflicted injury'. However to established the same, no
evidence is available on record. From the documents available on record
particularly from spot panchanama, it is clear that dead body was found 5
8 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
feet away from railway line. The postmortem report clearly states that due to
head injury the death was caused. In such circumstances, it is clear that no
conclusion can be drawn that it is a case of self inflicted injury.
17. The other issue which falls for consideration is a burden of proof.
Appellant discharged the burden by relyin upon the deposition of AW1 and
AW2. So also documents available on record established the fact that the
dead body of the deceased was found lying near the railway up line. As per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reena Devi
(supra) mere absence of ticket will not negative the claim that he was a bona
fide passenger. Once, the body of the deceased was found in the premises, the
railway administration is responsible for the compensation. Respondents did
not bring any evidence on record to establish the fact that death was not
caused due to accident.
18. The respondent heavily relied upon the DRM report dated
07.06.2018. Perusal of the said report nowhere disputed the spot where the
body of the deceased was found. It is also not disputed that certain trains
during the night hours were traveled on the same route. The only basis for
rejecting the claim of the appellants that the deceased was not having the
valid railway ticket. However as stated above and as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, same cannot be a reason to deny compensation
to appellant.
9 49.J.FA.1675.2019.odt
19. In the light of the above, I find that the Tribunal failed to
consider all these material aspect while deciding the claim application of the
appellant and hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order :
(a) The First Appeal is allowed.
(b) The judgment and order passed by the Member, Railway
Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur on 08.07.2019 in
Claim Application is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is hereby declared that the appellants are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.8 lakh along with the 6% interest
thereon from the date of filing of claim application before the
Tribunal i.e. 25.10.2017 till its realization, in equal
proportion.
(d) The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of
compensation to the appellants along with interest within
four month from the date of this order either before this
Court or at Railway Claims Tribunal and intimate the same to
appellant.
20. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/10/2025 20:12:01
