Seetabai Pandhrinath Temghabre vs Union Of India on 19 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:2672

ppn 1 36.fa-315.12.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
PRACHI
PRANESH
PRANESH FIRST APPEAL NO.315 OF 2012
NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.01.20
18:17:15 +0530
Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation- House-Wife,
R/o. Indiranagar Cyndigate,
Zopadpatti, Opposite Pournima,
Talkies, Murbad Road, Kalyan (E),
District - Thane ....Appellant
(Orig. Applicant)
V/s.
Union of India
through the General Manager,
Central Railway
C.S.T., Mumbai ....Respondent
(Orig. Respondent)
----
Mr. Sainand Chaugule for the appellant.
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. Gautam Modanwal for the respondent.
----

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 19th January 2026

Judgment : -

1. This appeal is filed by the original applicant against the order of the
Railway Claims Tribunal dated 11 November 2011, whereby the application
of the appellant came to be dismissed on the ground that the deceased was
not a bonafide passenger.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
The issue which arises in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal was
justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger ?

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:34:58 :::
ppn 2 36.fa-315.12.doc

3. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee of the respondent-railway.
While travelling in an Express train, he fell down between Khandala and
Monkey Hill point and lost his life.

4. The learned Tribunal gave a finding, which is not challenged, that it
is a case of an accidental fall from a train. Therefore, insofar as the issue of
"untoward incident" is concerned, it is concluded since there is no
challenge to it by the respondent.

5. The only issue which remains to be considered is whether the
deceased was a bonafide passenger.

6. Explanation to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 defines
"passenger" to include a railway servant on duty; and a person who has
purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on
any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an "untoward
incident". The deceased, admittedly, was not on duty at the time of the
incident and therefore, Explanation (i) to section 124 A of the said Act is
not applicable.

7. The question therefore arises is whether the deceased had a valid
ticket for travel.

8. The deceased, being a railway employee, is governed by the Railway
Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 as amended in the year 1993. As per the said
Rules, a railway servant is entitled to a free pass. There is no definition
given of "privilege pass". However, Section 2 (f) of the 1986 Rules defines
"pass" to mean an authority given by the Department of Railways or any
railway administration to a person, authorizing him to travel gratiously.

9. Schedule to the said Rules gives the entitlement of the "privilege
pass" based on the category to which an employee belongs. There is no

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:34:58 :::
ppn 3 36.fa-315.12.doc

dispute that the deceased had a second class free pass which is annexed at
page 38 of the appeal paper book. In the said pass, there is a description
which is required to be given namely date of arrival, date of departure,
outward/inward etc. These details have not been filled up by the deceased
in the impugned case. However, there is no dispute that the incident
happened during the time when the pass was valid.

10. If an employee wants a reservation, then he has to approach the
ticket counter and the officer at the ticket counter will give endorsement of
the coach, the train number and the berth which will be reserved for the
employee. However, if an employee decides not to travel by a reserved
compartment, then such an endorsement may not be necessary. In the
instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was
travelling by the reserved compartment. Therefore, non-endorsement on
the pass is inconsequential. As per the Tribunal, the deceased should have
filled up the date of journey and other details on the pass. However, merely
because an employee holding a valid pass fails to mention himself the
details referred to in the pass, same cannot be held to mean that the
employee was travelling without a valid pass. There could be various
reasons as to why an employee did not make an endorsement himself on
the relevant pass. However, in the absence of any reason given in the
impugned order, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the deceased. There
is no reason why a railway employee carrying a valid pass would not give
the details of his journey, since in any case, the travel is free. There is
nothing on record to show that the deceased had exceeded the entitlement
of the number of trips as per the pass. Therefore, no adverse inference can
be drawn on this count.

11. If the pass is misused, then the Rules and the Schedule prescribes the

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:34:58 :::
ppn 4 36.fa-315.12.doc

fines and penalty and the disciplinary proceedings which may be taken
against an employee. However, the present case does not fall in any of these
categories. The Rules does not prescribe the procedure for seeking prior
approval on the pass.

12. In view of above, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger.

13. A very similar situation arose before the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in the case of Pulipaka Varalakshmi & Ors. Versus Union of India1 and the
Hon'ble High Court rejected the contention raised that the deceased therein
was not a bonafide passenger. Similar argument has been advanced before
me and therefore, the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
applies to the facts of the present case. However, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court reduced the compensation since the nature of use of the pass was in
doubt. In the instant case also, the deceased ought to have either got the
endorsement done by the appropriate authorities or he himself should have
made an endorsement on the details required in the pass i.e., date of
journey, etc. This having not been done, in my view and following the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, full compensation cannot be
granted. The appellant would be entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs. There cannot be a
straight jacket formula on the justification of Rs.3 lakhs. However, I have
exercised my discretion after examining the facts of the present case.

14. The views expressed by me in the present appeal are also supported
by the following decisions of various High Courts :-

(I) Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur Vs.
Anandi @ Anandi Devi w/o Late Baijnath2,
(II) R. C. Jayamohan & Anr. Vs. Union of India, represented by General

1 2011 SCC OnLine, AP 263
2 Misc. Appeal No.168 of 2014 dated 6 March 2024

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:34:58 :::
ppn 5 36.fa-315.12.doc

Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai-13,
(III) Jaya and Ors. Vs. Union of India, represented by General Manager4

(IV) Surekha Suresh Jadhav & Anr. Vs. Union of India through General
Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai.5

15. In view of above, the following order is passed :-

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 11 November, 2011 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The appellant is permitted to amend the original application to bring the children of the deceased on record. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today in the copy of the original application. Since records and proceedings are available in this Court, amendment to be carried out here itself.

(iii) The appellant is entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the actual payment subject to a cap of Rs. 8 lakhs.

(iv) The appellant to give details of the bank accounts of the dependents and the respondent is directed to transfer the amount equally to all the dependents within eight weeks from the date the appellant makes application for the compensation alongwith the copy of the present order.

16. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

3 AIR OnLine 2020 Ker 1367 4 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 34606 5 First Appeal No.17 of 2016 dated 17 December 2025