[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt.Arti Rameshchandra Shukla And Ors. vs Union Of India, Thr.General Manager, ... on 18 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:8481
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
Digitally signed
by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NADAF
Date:
2026.02.18
17:30:35 +0530
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2022
1] Smt. Arti Rameshchandra Shukla )
Aged 42 years, )
2] Siddhant Rameshchandra Shukla )
Aged 13 years, )
3] Ms. Darshita Rameshchandra Shukla )
Aged 11 years )
(Appellant Nos.2 & 3 are minor. )
They are applying through their )
next friend and natural guardian )
Smt. Arti Rameshchandra Shukla. )
All residing at A/003, )
Rushi Kutir Apartment, )
Manvel Pada Road, )
Virar East, Vasai, Thane, )
Maharashtra - 401305 ) ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India, )
through General Manager, )
Western Railway, )
Churchgate Railway Station, )
Churchgate, Mumbai ) ... Respondent
***
Mr. Vasant N. More i/b. Mr. Deepak V. Sadvilkar for the Appellants.
Mr. Niranjan Shimpi a/w. Ms. Revaa Kadam & Ms. Bhagyashri
Waghmare for the Respondent.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Husen 1
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:00 :::
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed by the Applicants/Claimants in Claim
Application No.OA (II-u)/MCC/0500/2016 before Railway Claims
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai challenging the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Member
(Technical) of the said Tribunal. By the impugned Judgment and
Order, the claim application filed by the Appellants is dismissed.
2. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as
under:
2.1 The Appellants are wife, son and daughter of the deceased
Rameshchandra Shitalaprasad Shukla. The application is filed under
Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ('the said Act' for
short) seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards death of
deceased in an untoward incident.
2.2. It is the case of the Appellants that on 07.05.2016 the deceased
came to Virar station and purchased a second class railway return
ticket for traveling to Mahalaxmi railway station by local train. While
returning to Virar, when the deceased was traveling in the local train,
when it reached between Nalasopara and Virar, near K.M. 59/6-7,
deceased accidentally fell down and sustained serious injuries
resulting in his death on the spot. The second class return ticket on
the basis of which the deceased was traveling, is filed alongwith
claim application.
2.3 The Respondent-Railway contested the claim by filing written
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
statement and DRM report contending inter alia that no untoward
incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways
Act, 1989 has taken place and therefore, the application is not
maintainable. It is denied that the deceased was traveling on second
class ticket. It is contended that as per DRM report, on 09.05.2016 at
00.15 hrs. the Station Master of Virar received information that
unknown passenger is lying injured near K.M. 50/6-7 between Virar
and Nalasopara. That on receipt of such information, the Station
Master, Railway Police and doctor attended the spot and on
checking by doctor, the person was declared dead. GRP mentioned
recovery of railway return ticket from Virar to Mahalaxmi. The
Station Master in his charge book also mentioned that the deceased
died while crossing railway track. That crossing railway track is an
offence punishable under the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore, the
incident has happened due to deceased's own negligence by not
following applicable rules. Therefore prayer is made to dismiss the
claim.
2.4 The Appellants examined Appellant No.1 Smt. Arti
Rameshchandra Shukla who has been cross-examined by the
Respondent-Railway. They filed documents in support of their case,
viz. original ticket, Station Master's memo, inquest panchnama, death
certificate, ration card, Aadhar card, PAN card, birth certificate etc.
The Respondent relied upon DRM report and an affidavit of its
witness Mr. Deepak Budhaji Chavan. Issues were framed and by the
impugned order, the claim application is dismissed.
3. Learned counsel Mr. More appearing for the Appellants,
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
submitted that the claim application could not have been dismissed.
He submitted that in inquest panchnama, it is stated that according
to panchas and police, death has occurred by falling down from local
train resulting in serious injury to head. It is submitted that the
return railway ticket was found during the inquest panchnama. He
submitted that the sole witness of the Respondent-Railway has
admitted that no Motorman and Guard informed about incident and
the so called unknown person who told that the deceased died while
trespassing/ crossing railway track, has not given his identity. He
submitted that the evidence must be considered on pre-ponderance
of probability and strict rule of evidence would not apply. He
submitted that there is contradiction between inquest panchnama
and the DRM report. He submitted that in absence of specific
medical/expert evidence that the death is due to run-over or knock-
down by the train, the Tribunal could not have come to the
conclusion that it is a case of run-over/knock-down. He relied upon
following judgments in support of his case.
i. Ramdhan alias Namdeo and Anr. V. Union of India and Anr.
[2009 (3) T.A.C. 193 (Bom.)].
ii. Balu Motiram Dongre and Ors. V. Union of India [2023 ACJ
751].
iii. Sanyokta Devi V. Union of India [2023 ACJ 2009].
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shimpi learned counsel for the
Respondent-Railway, submitted that there is no eye witness involved.
That it is admitted by wife of deceased in cross-examination. That
there is no witness who has seen the incident and therefore no
personal knowledge is on record. Relying on report of untoward
incident, he submitted that this is a case of run-over / knock-down.
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
He submitted that the deceased was found near railway track. He
further submitted that as per the death certificate, the death has
occurred due to multiple injuries and there is no mention of railway
accident. He further submitted that even inquest panchnama
indicates serious injury to head. He submitted that the accident has
taken place near Virar where the deceased resided and there is no
evidence about the deceased boarding the train. He relied upon the
following judgments in support of his case.
i. Smt. Sangeeta Dinesh Dhokle and Anr. V. Union of India [First
Appeal No.1370 of 2017 Judgment dated 25.02.2025].
ii. Ganesh s/o. Waman Waghmare and Anr. V. Union of India
[First Appeal No.347 of 2022 Judgment dated 09.11.2022].
iii. Smt. Meena Devi wd/o. Late Chhotan Singh and Ors. V. UOI
[Miscellaneous Appeal No. 795 of 2016 Judgment dated
18.04.2025 (Patna High Court)].
5. In view of rival pleadings and submissions made on behalf of
the parties, following points arise for my consideration, on which my
answers are stated, for the reasons to follow.
(a) Whether there was an untoward incident in which the
deceased suffered injuries and died while traveling in the
train? YES
(b) Whether the Respondent-Railway is protected under
exception clause of Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989 absolving it from the liability? NO.
(c) Whether the impugned Judgment and Order requires
interference? YES.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
record.
7. At the outset, it is necessary to note that vide Issue Nos.1 & 2,
the Tribunal has already held that the deceased was a bona-fide
passenger on the train in question at the time of accident and the
Appellants are dependents of the deceased. These findings are not
challenged by the Respondent-Railway and therefore need not be re-
considered.
8. At the further outset, it is necessary to note that there is no
expert medical evidence on record suggesting that injuries in this
case are due to run-over by the train and the deceased was knocked
down while crossing railway tracks.
9. The nature of injuries emerging from inquest panchnama as
well as medical certificate on record indicates serious injury to head.
9.1. The death certificate indicates "severe hemorrhagic shock due
to multiple # of skull"
9.2. Inquest panchnama records injuries as "4 to 5 inch long wound
on right side of head and head is broken and brain came out, 2 inch
long wound on left eye and it has turn blackish, left eye is closed due
to serious injury, left ear is broken and 2 inch wound, bleeding from
nose and mouth, abrasions on body."
10. It is material to note that there is over-writing in the Station
Master's memo which indicates that initially it was written 'hit by
unknown train' which is scored out and thereafter it is written
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
'unknown grievously hit on head and killed-Head, Brain damage'.
Though the blank is filled completing the sentence in the printed
format by the word 'unknown', the words 'hit by unknown train' have
been written and scored-out.
11. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for a
compensation on account of untoward incident. However, under the
proviso thereto, it is provided that no compensation shall be payable
by Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due
to self-inflicting injury or his own criminal act. In the present case,
there is no independent evidence about the deceased being run-over
or knocked down by the railway while passing the railway track.
There is no report from Motorman or Guard reporting such incident
of a person being hit by the train.
12. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has
concluded as follows.
"10.6) Thus, from the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased,
it can be inferred that the deceased while trying to cross the
railway track on the fateful day, might have got hit by an unknown
train."
[emphasis supplied]
13. Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has drawn inference that
the deceased was trying to cross railway track and he might have got
hit by unknown train. The inference is drawn by Tribunal itself on the
basis of nature of injuries.
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
14. The argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent-
Railway is that the deceased resided at Virar and was found injured
near railway track there and therefore it should be inferred that he
was trying to cross the railway track. This argument is without merit,
especially in the absence of proof of deceased crossing railway-tracks
or a knock-down itself.
15. Starting from inquest panchnama it is stated that Station
Master was informed by some passenger that one unknown person
has met with an accident between Nalasopara and Virar. It is
recorded in inquest panchnama that according to panch witnesses
and police, the death has occurred due to fall from the local train
resulting in injury to head. Perusal of DRM report indicates that the
conclusion drawn about the case being that of knock-down/run-over
appears to be based on the Station Master's memo in which
apparently scoring has been found.
16. Sole witness of the Railway, though has stated in the affidavit
of examination-in-chief that he got information from 'an unknown
passenger' about trespassing person hit by train and lying on the
track, he has admitted in cross- examination that no Motorman or
Guard informed about the incident and the alleged 'unknown person'
has not given any identity. This witness has further admitted that he
came to know about incident at 00.15 hrs., however, he does not
know the time of the accident.
17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, the
inference drawn by the Tribunal about this being a case of knock-
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
down/run-over is not sustainable, in the absence of specific medical
evidence/expert evidence.
18. Now let us consider judgments relied upon by the Respondent-
Railway. In Smt. Sangeeta Dinesh Dhokle (supra), this Court had
found on appreciation of the evidence that the witness No.2
examined by the Claimants was 'a planted witness' who had stated
about meeting the deceased and boarding the train together. Since
this Court found on the facts that the said witness is a planted
witness, this Court has disbelieved the case of untoward incident, and
in that context, the first appeal is dismissed. The facts of the present
case are not at all similar.
19. In Ganesh s/o. Waman Waghmare (supra), no witness was
examined to demonstrate or establish that the deceased has boarded
the train at a particular station.
20. In this respect, in the landmark judgment of Union of India V
Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered various earlier judgments of the Supreme Court as well as
High Courts and has culled out conclusions as under:
"18.XXXX Wherever it is found that the revised amount of
applicable compensation as on the date of award of the Tribunal is
less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of
accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be
awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation
is certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.
20. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and
124-A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there
has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the Railway
Administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an
"untoward incident". Only exceptions are those provided under
proviso to Section 124-A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar it was held
that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in
case of railway accidents. Where principle of strict liability applies,
proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been
reiterated in Jameela"
25.XXXX 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
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
Sarabi 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
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
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]
21. It is therefore, clear that initial burden on the Claimants can be
discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and then the burden
will shift on the railway and issue can be decided on facts emerging
from the attending circumstances.
22. Though in the present case, no witness is examined about the
deceased boarding the train at a particular station, admittedly, a
second class return ticket was found on the deceased, in the inquest
panchnama. Admittedly the deceased and Claimants were residents
of Virar which was the destination in the ticket. The Claimant's wife
has entered witness box and has stated that while traveling from
Mahalaxmi to Virar, the deceased has accidentally fell down from the
local train and died on the spot due to serious injuries sustained. She
has also stated that the deceased was residing at Virar (E) who came
at Virar station and purchased the second class return ticket for
traveling towards Mahalaxmi and the said railway ticket was
recovered from the deceased. Though this witness had admitted she
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
has no personal knowledge of incident because she was at residence,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanyokta Devi (supra) has held
that Claimant cannot be expected to explain the manner in which the
incident took place because she was not accompanying the deceased.
23. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in my view, non-
examination of witness in support of the case of deceased boarding
the train, cannot be considered as fatal, especially, in view of the law
laid down in Rina Devi (supra) and Sanyokta Devi (supra).
24. So far as the judgment of Smt. Meena Devi (supra) is
concerned, relied upon by the Railway, in the said judgment, the
learned Judge of the Patna High Court had found on facts, that the
Claimant had failed to produce valid ticket. In the absence of ticket,
the Court was considering whether claim can be sustained. In that
context, it was held that there was no ocular evidence. Also in that
case, the post-mortem report indicated that death occurred due to the
deceased being run-over by the train. The facts of the present case
are completely different, in as much as, a valid ticket has been found
on the person of the deceased, there is no expert evidence (medical
evidence) concluding death by run-over/knock-down and therefore
the said judgment of Smt. Meena Devi (supra) will not help the
Respondent-Railway.
25. In Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan V. Union of India [First Appeal
No.658 Of 2018 Judgment dated 15.03.2021 (Bombay High Court)],
this court has held that in absence of expert medical opinion about
cause of death being run-over/knock-down by a train, the Tribunal
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
should not have rendered its personal opinion. It may not be out of
place to mention here, that in this case (Sadashiv R. Kotiyan), the
body of the deceased was found cut into two pieces. Even then, this
Court has taken a view that in absence of expert opinion the Tribunal
was not justified in opining itself about the nature of injuries to
conclude the case of run-over/knock-down.
26. In Mrs. Seema Wd/o Sanjay Pathare and Anr. V. Union of India
[First Appeal No.551 Of 2021 Judgment dated 05.09.2022 (Bombay
High Court)], this Court has held that it is not a universal proposition
that every crush injury is necessarily caused by coming in contact
with a moving train and such injury can also be caused when a
person falls from a speeding train and comes in contact with a hard
surface or an object. In the said case, the finding of the Tribunal that
it is not an untoward incident, was found unsustainable. In the
present case, the injury is to the head. The said injury cannot be said
to be caused only by an impact of a train running over / knocking
down the deceased. Such injury is also possible by the deceased
falling down and his head being hit on a hard object. This Court
cannot lose sight of the fact that the statutes involved are beneficial
piece of legislation, and it should receive liberal and wider
interpretation and not narrow and technical one.
27. In Mrs. Raziya Abdul Kadir Shaikh V. Union of India [First
Appeal No. 939 Of 2019 Judgment dated 24.01.2022 (Bombay High
Court)] this Court has taken note of the fact that "accidental falling"
can be in a myriad of situations and having regard to the object of
beneficial legislation, the Tribunals and Courts are expected to
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
construe the term, "accidental falling" in a purposive manner.
28. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, the
Tribunal was not justified in appreciating the nature of injuries on its
own to conclude that this is a case of knock-down/run-over by the
train. Admittedly, there is no medical/expert opinion indicating
nature of injuries as that of knock-down/run-over by the train. The
absence of eye-witness assumes importance in this respect also. It is
material to note that the Respondent-Railway has also not examined
any witness in support of its case that the deceased was crossing the
railway track. In the present case, there is also no intimation by any
Railway Motorman or Guard reporting a case of run-over / knock-
down at the relevant time.
29. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is sufficient
material to hold that the deceased died as a result of 'an untoward
incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) r/w. 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989. The argument about the deceased himself being
negligent is rejected in view of the law discussed above.
30. The date of accident is 09.05.2016. At that time, Rules
provided compensation of Rs. 4 Lakh. However, the Rules have been
modified w.e.f. 01.01.2017 revising the compensation to Rs. 8 Lakh.
The date of impugned order is 06.12.2021 which is after the Rules
are modified. As such, as on the date of impugned order, the revised
amount of compensation of Rs. 8 Lakh would apply, being higher of
the two. Interest @ 9% p.a. will be appropriate following paragraph
30 of Rina Devi (supra).
FA-1258-2022(J) C2.doc
31. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by passing following order:
(a) The impugned Judgment and Order is set aside.
(b) The Applicants are entitled to receive and the
Respondent-Railway is directed to pay to the Appellants
a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, within a period of 6 weeks from
today.
(c) In case of default, the amount shall carry an interest
@9% p.a. after 6 weeks till the date of realization.
(d) No order as to costs.
32. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
