[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Bharathi Mohan Sonawane And Ors. vs Union Of India, Through The General ... on 2 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:15699
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD
MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR
Date:
2026.04.02
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19:05:20
+0530
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1240/2022
1. SMT. BHARATHI MOHAN SONAWANE )
AGE YEARS )
2. MISS. PRAMILA MOHAN SONAWANE )
AGE YEARS )
3. MISS YOGITA MOHAN SONAWANE )
AGE YEARS )
ALL R/O JAIN GALLI, )
AT AND POST DHARANGAON )
TALUKA - DHARANGAON, )
DISTRICT - JALGAON, MAHARASHTRA ) ..APPELLANTS
VS
UNION OF INDIA, )
THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, )
WESTERN RAILWAY, CHURCHGATE, )
MUMBAI - 400 020 ) ..RESPONDENT
------------
Adv. Mohan Rao for appellants.
Adv. Niranjan Prabhakar Shimpi for respondent - UOI.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
RESERVED ON : 24 FEBRUARY 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON: 2 APRIL 2026.
JUDGMENT :
1) The present first appeal is filed u/s.23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the impugned judgment and order
dated 5/3/2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
Bench, Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal'), in OA (II
u)/MCC/1223/2013.
2) The appellants filed Claim Application before the Railway
Tribunal. It was the appellants' case that the husband of the
appellant no.1 was travelling as a bonafide passenger from Mumbai
Central to Borivali station, on the strength of a second class Railway
Privilege Free pass and he accidentally fell down from a running
train, thereby sustaining head injuries due to which he died.
3) The Railways filed their reply to the Claim Application and
submitted that in the DRM Report dated 16/10/2009, on duty
SS/BCT (M) received information that one unknown male lying dead
at Km.no.5/104b near point no.126 Platform no.05 at Mumbai
Central Railway Station. The Station Master did not mention any
reason of the incident in the memo, but the GRP mentioned in the
inquest panchanama that the deceased was knocked down by an
unknown shunting train and sustained injuries and died on the spot.
Trespassing being an offence u/s. 147 of Railways Act and the GRP
did not find any travelling authority of railway in possession of the
deceased during the personal search, hence, the deceased was not a
bonafide railway passenger, therefore, compensation should not be
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
granted to the claimant.
4) Following Issues were thereafter framed by the Tribunal :-
i) Whether the Applicant proves that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant
day?
ii) Whether the Applicant proves that the death of the
deceased had occurred as a result of an Untoward Incident as
alleged in the Claim Application?
iii) Whether the Applicant proves that she is the dependent
of the deceased within the meaning of Sec.123(b) of the
Railways Act?
iv) To what order/relief?
5) The applicant no.1 had examined herself by filing her affidavit
dated 13/2/2019 and produced the relevant documents in evidence.
She was cross-examined by the railway's advocate and thereafter, a
friend of the deceased working with the railway was also examined
as P.W. No.2. The said witness was also cross-examined by the
railway's advocate. Thereafter, the railway examined the Station
Superintendent of the Mumbai Central Railway Station who filed his
affidavit. He was cross-examined by the advocate appearing for the
applicants. The evidence was thereafter closed.
6) Subsequently, the Tribunal heard learned counsel for the
parties and by its judgment and order dated 5/3/2021, dismissed the
Claim Application. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed by
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
the Tribunal, the present first appeal has been filed by the original
claimant.
7) Following points arise for determination which are as follows:-
(a) Whether interference is required in the impugned
judgment and order dated 5/3/2021 passed by the Tribunal ?
(b) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the
train in question at the time of the incident ?
(c) Whether the death of the deceased was occurred as a
result of an "untoward incident" ?
(d) Whether any compensation is payable to the appellants
being the dependents of the deceased ?
8) Mr. Mohan Rao appearing for the appellants-original claimants
submitted that the claimant no.1 had filed her affidavit before the
Tribunal and narrated that the deceased was a bonafide passenger
holding a second class Railway Privilege Free Pass and the deceased
accidentally fell down from a running train. Hence, initial burden
was discharged and shifted on Railways, and they could not prove
their case. The Tribunal failed to consider this fact, hence, the
impugned order of Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside.
9) Mr. Shimpi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
Union of India has relied upon the following judgments to support
his contentions :-
i) Malati Yashwant Panchal & anr. vs. Union of
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
India1;
ii) Mulji Bharumal Sundra & anr. vs. Union of
India ;
iii) Ramdas Omkar Sonawane & ors. vs. Union
of India3;
iv) Ganesh s/o. Waman Waghmare & anr. vs.
Union of India4;
v) Smt. Sangeeta Dinesh Dhokle & anr. vs.
Union of India5;
vi) Meena Devi Gupta vs. Union of India6.
10) He contended that the facts of this matter has to be looked
into and in the present proceeding, there was no reason for deceased
to go near Platform no.5 which is away from local platform nos. 1 to
4. He further submitted that the appellants were not able to produce
the second class railway privilege free pass neither it was found with
the body of the deceased. Therefore, according to him, on the first
ground of 'bonafide passenger', the case of the appellants fails.
11) He submitted that there is a variance between the statement
made by the friend of the deceased. At one time, he stated that he
was on the Platform no.5 and he me the deceased on the platform
no.5 and thereafter, he made statement that he met the deceased on
the bridge. He further submitted that there is no untoward incident
1 First Appeal No.505/2019, judgment dtd. 12/11/2025
2 First Appeal No.634/2017, judgment dtd. 1/12/2025
3 First Appeal No.273/2021, judgment dtd. 14/8/2025
4 First Appeal No.347/2022, judgment dtd. 9/11/2022
5 First Appeal No.1370/2017, judgment dtd. 25/2/2025.
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
mentioned here. It is not fall within the definition of 'untoward
incident' as defined u/s. 123-C of the Railways Act.
12) He submitted that hence the First Appeal needs to be
dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal needs to be
confirmed.
13) I have heard learned counsels for the parties and with their
help I have gone through the documents on record.
14) Before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants, an affidavit
dated 13/2/2019 of appellant no.1 was filed, wherein she
specifically stated that the deceased was carrying second class
Railway Privilege Free pass, and he had accidentally fallen down
from the running train near Mumbai Central Railway Station. Due to
head injury he died. So also, a friend of the deceased who was also
working in Railways, has filed his affidavit in which he has stated
that he had seen the deceased while boarding the train at Mumbai
Central Railway Station and after some time he heard loud noise and
as people shouted that somebody has fallen down from the train, he
rushed to the spot to find that it was deceased who had fallen down.
15) The railways have examined their officer Mr. Piyush Modi, who
in his evidence stated that he had filed an affidavit for the limited
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
purpose to show that there is a distance between Platform No.4 and
5 of around 300-500 mt. In his cross-examination he stated that he is
not aware anything about the incident.
16) Similarly, the punch witnesses stated that one unknown person
cut in two pieces found near Platform No.5. The accident memo
dated 16/10/2009 itself states 'found lying died into two pieces
which is signed by the Station Master.
17) It is necessary to examine the dicta of the Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi7. In paragraph 25, it was
held that death of the victim during boarding or deboarding the train
both would be considered as an "untoward incident". Similarly, in
paragraph 29 it was held that the victim's legal heirs can discharge
the burden of bonafide passenger by filing their requisite affidavit
where they will give details of the fact that the victim had purchased
railway ticket and hence, he was the bonafide passenger at the time
of the accident had occurred. It is held in paragraph 19 that while
granting compensation, the higher of the two one being the date of
the accident or the date of the award will be considered. Similarly,
in paragraph 30, while considering the fact about granting of rate of
interest, the Supreme Court considered the judgment of Thazhathe
7 (2019) 3 SCC572
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
Purayil Sarabi vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372
wherein the rate of interest of 6% was granted from the date of the
application till the date of the award and further 9% thereafter
awarded till the amount was paid. Paragraphs 19, 25, 29 and 30 read
as under:-
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 stands 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.
25. 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 b 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 the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of
the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on "no fault
theory" under Section 163-A 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 124-A merely on the plea of negligence
of the victim as a contributing factor.
29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
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.
30. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe
Purayil Sarabils held that rate of interest has to be 6% from the
date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter
and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of
application in Mohamadi, rate of interest has to be reasonable
rate on a par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that
in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be
awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of
the Railways arises up to the date of payment, without any
difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is on a par
with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.
[Emphasis supplied]
17.1) Supreme Court in the judgment of Sanyoka Devi vs.
Union of India8 held that the Railway claim should be
examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and
not on parameters of beyond any reasonable doubt. Para
no.20 reads as under :-
20. The Tribunal and the High Court have overlooked the
fact that the appellant successfully discharged the initial onus
on her by proving that the deceased had bought a valid
railway ticket and boarded the train to reach the specified
destination. It was a compensatory claim, originating out of a
social welfare legislation, and such claim ought to have been
examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and
not on the parameters of "beyond any reasonable doubt" as
8 2023 (2) T.A.C. 16 (S.C.)
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
we often apply in a criminal trial.
[ Emphasis supplied ]
18) The Supreme Court in the case of Jameela & ors. vs.
Union of India9 while considering the fact that the deceased
was standing at the open door of running train compartment
when he fell down, the Court held that it may be an act of
negligence of deceased, however, the railway would be liable
to pay compensation. In paragraph 9, it held that, negligence
is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c)
to the proviso to section 124-A. Criminal act envisaged under
clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens
rea. Therefore, standing at the open doors of the compartment
of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but
without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus,
the case of the railway must fail even after assuming
everything in its favour. Paragraph 9 reads as under:-
9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be
reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at
the open door of the train compartment from where he fell
down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now
negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on
Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act
mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A
criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an
element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the
9 AIR 2010 SC 3705
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a
negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it
is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway
must fall even after assuming everything in its favour.
(Emphasis supplied)
19) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors.10 held that it will not legally
make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside
the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to
get into the train when she fell down. In either case it amounts
to an "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers'. Therefore, it is within the definition of 'untoward
incident' as per Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
19.1) Further it was held that if the words used in a beneficial or
welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is
more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit
of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In
other words, the beneficial and welfare statutes should be given a
liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. The expression
"accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers"
including accidents when a bonafide passenger is trying to enter
into a railway train and falls down during the process. Section
10 2008 ACJ 1895
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of
railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of
Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
Paragraphs 10, 12, 14 and 17 read as under:-
10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any
difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when
she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train
when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an
'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'.
Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the
Railways Act.
12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare
statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in
consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person
for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, the
beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal
or strict interpretation.
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the
expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers' in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, we will be
depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting
compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that in our
country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains
since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By
giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be
depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly
poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the
Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling
of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents
when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger travelling with a valid
ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down
during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal,
interpretation should be given to the expression.
17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in
case of rail-way accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview
of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
(Emphasis
supplied)
20) The ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the judgments
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
discussed above are squarely applicable to the present
proceeding.
20.1) As far as authorities relied upon by counsel on behalf of
Railways are concerned :
(i) In Malati Panchal (supra), Single Judge of this
Court held that incident occurred in May 2012, and
in Station Master's report, there is no mention about
Mr.Gawade friend of the deceased informing the
Station Master, and further he accompanying the
police at site of the incident. The affidavit of
Mr.Gawade has been filed in the proceedings after 5
years. His presence is not shown in any document
that he was travelling with the deceased. Even in
Inquest Report, his name is not shown as present on
site. Therefore on the basis of the documents and
evidence on record, it was held that the deceased
was not travelling with a valid ticket, hence
claimants were not entitled to any compensation.
Therefore, the facts were quite different than the
present proceedings.
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
(ii) In Mulji Bharumal Sundra (supra) Single
Judge of this Court was considering whether
deceased was a bonafide passenger. Upon
considering the judgment of Kamrunnissa vs. Union
of India reported in(2019)12 SCC 391 decided by
the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge held
that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The
facts of that case were materially different than the
present proceedings. Hence, the ratio laid down
therein will not be applicable to the present
proceedings.
(iii) In Ramdas Omkar Sonawane (supra) this
Court held that in the cross-examination, the
claimant admitted that the deceased was crossing
railway track when the accident occurred.
Therefore, the death of the deceased would not fall
within the ambit of "untoward incident". Therefore,
all the facts in this judgment are vastly different than
that of the present proceedings.
(iv) In Ganesh s/o. Waman Waghmare (supra),
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
the learned Single Judge was considering the issue
that no journey ticket was recovered from the body
of the deceased and of evidence, there was nothing
to suggest that any ticket was ever purchased by the
deceased. Hence, the claim petition was rejected.
Again, in the said judgment, the facts are entirely
different than the present proceedings. Therefore,
the ratio laid down will not be applicable to the
present proceedings.
(v) In Smt. Sangeeta Dinesh Dhokle (supra), a
Single Judge held that as per the statement given by
the brother and wife of the deceased in comparison
to the statement given by the friend of the deceased,
there was a testamentary appears to be concocted.
Hence, it was discarded.
(vi) In Meena Devi Gupta (supra), the learned
Single Judge of this Court held that the claimant
failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger. Based on a close assessment of the
nature injury showing that the injuries were not as a
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
result of accidental fall and they were more
inductive of he being knocked down by a train.
21) Considering the evidence on record of the present proceedings,
I hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death had
occurred as a result of an untoward incident. I am satisfied that the
impugned order of the Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, Point Nos. (a), (b) and (c) are answered in affirmative in
favour of appellant.
22) The date of accident is 16/10/2009. The dependents of the
deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal on 4/6/2012. The
Railway Accidental Compensation Rules, 1990 were amended from
1/1/2017, whereby for death, the amount of compensation was
increased from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. The impugned order
was passed by the Railways Tribunal on 1/3/2021.
22.1) Considering the date of claim application, i.e. 4/6/2012, the
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- can be granted. The interest from the
date of accident till today on Rs.4,00,000/- @ 9%, would be
Rs.5,94,000/-. The total amount payable as of today would be
Rs.9,94,000/-. If calculated as per amended Rules would be
Rs.8,00,000/-. As per the ratio of the judgment of Rina Devi (supra),
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
the higher of the two amounts is Rs.9,94,000/-.
23) Accordingly, I pass following order :-
(i) The First Appeal stands allowed and impugned
order passed by the Railway Tribunal on 5/3/2021, in OA
(II u)/MCC/1223/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of the issues with respect to whether the
deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the death
of the deceased was occurred as an result of an untoward
incident. The findings recorded with respect to the
appellants being the dependents of the deceased which has
been answered in favour of the appellants, is hereby
confirmed.
(ii) The Appellants are entitled to receive from the
Respondent - Railway, a sum of Rs.9,94,000/- as on today.
As the appellants being dependents are three in number
being the wife and two daughters of the deceased, the said
amount be equally distributed between them.
(iii) The said amount of Rs.9,94,000/- be deposited by
the Railway in the bank account of the appellants within
eight weeks from the date when the appellants furnish the
DIKSHA RANE/KVM 19 FA 1240 2022.doc
bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Western Railway..
In case of default, this amount shall carry interest @ 9%
p.a. till its realization.
(iv) No costs.
24) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
