[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Dhanjo Devi vs The Union Of India Through The General ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:36406 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 196 of 2023
------
1. Smt. Dhanjo Devi, W/O late Sushi Mandal (wife of deceased)
2. Sri Bhavixan Mandal, S/O Chetan Mandal (father of deceased)
3. Mira Devi, W/O Bhavixan Mandal (mother of deceased)
4. Saroj Kumar, S/O late Sushil Mandal (minor son of deceased)
5. Vishnu Kumar S/O late Sushil Mandal (minor son of deceased)
6. Neelam Kumari D/O late Sushil Mandal (minor daughter of deceased)
7. Maushami Kumari D/O late Sushil Mandal (minor daughter of
deceased)
Serial Nos. 4 to 7 are being minor represented through her mother and
natural guardian/appellant no.1
All are Resident of Village: Chhoti Mohanpur, P.O- khawaspur,
P.S- Pirpainti, Dist- Bhagalpur (Bihar)
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The Union of India through the General Manager,
Eastern Railway, Kolkata, P.O.& P.S.& Dist- Kolkata
... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : M/s Vijay Shankar Jha & Manish Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Chandra Prakash, CGC
------
Order No. 12 / Dated : 04.12.2025
Appellants are in appeal against the judgment passed on 25.01.2023
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench at Ranchi in Case No.
O.A.(IIU)/RNC/36/2021 in which the claim application has been
dismissed.
2. The claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 8 Lakh
with interest from the date of the accident of deceased Sushil Mandal in a
railway accident on 29.03.2019.
3. As per the Fardebayan of Sri Santu Mandal, brother of the deceased
recorded by Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, ASI/GRP/Sahibganj on 29.03.2019
at 08:20 at the Mirzachouki railway station at platform No. 02 near Pole
No. 246/3-4, the deceased was travelling from Pirpainti to Kolkata
(Howrah) in the Train No. 13134 DN Train to purchase the truck part of
Tracker Sawari Gari. But on 29.03.2019 the brother of the deceased Sri
Santu Mandal received an information over his mobile at 6:00 hrs. in the
morning that his brother has died at Mirzachouki railway station due to the
fall from the running train.
4. One witness was examined on behalf of the appellants. From perusal
of the lower court record, it appears that certified copy of Station memo-
2025:JHHC:36406 )
Ext.A1, Fardbyan-Ext.A2, Inquest report- Ext.A3, PM Report-Ext.A4,
Final Report- Ext.A5, Original Family Certificate- Ext.A6, Photo copies of
bank passbook, Aadhar card and Applicant No.1 Smt. Dhanjo Devi, wife
of deceased presented herself before the Bench as AW1.She was cross-
examined by the Respondent council and discharged.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that in order to
entitle the claimants for compensation, the only requirement is that the
deceased died in an 'untoward incident' involving a train and that he was a
bonafide passenger at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has not
discussed the evidence, which was brought on record either oral or
documentary and the claim has been dismissed. Further, the requirement of
railway ticket is not a sine qua non for establishing that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in (2019) 3 SCC 572 (Union of India Vs. Rina Devi).
6. Learned counsel for the Railways has defended the impugned order
that the ticket of the applicant has been disputed as the AW (1) during cross
examination stated that her husband was going to Kolkata and she did not
know that from where her husband has purchased the ticket. Further from
the inquest report in column 7 it has nowhere stated that ticket was
recovered from the dead body of the deceased. Further argued that the
deceased was a trespasser to railway premises and death was because of
his own fault.
7. The main line of arguments, advanced by learned counsel for the
Railways, is that since the railway ticket could not be produced, therefore,
it could not be established by the claimants that the deceased was the
bonafide passenger in terms of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides, the plea of absence of railway ticket is not sustainable as the other
evidence suggest that death was in an untoward incident, and the deceased
was run over by a passenger train. The learned Tribunal has disbelieved the
claimant as she could not give the details of the journey of the deceased. It
does not stand to reason and common sense, that once a person leaves his
house for proceeding to Calcutta, his wife at home will be posted about the
detail itinerary of his journey. This may be possible in cases for those from
the upper strata of society who move on regular reservations, but the same
will not apply for those who move by train without valid reservation but on
2025:JHHC:36406 )
general ticket, depending upon the availability of the train at the relevant
time. Law is settled in Rina Devi case (supra) that the requirement of
railway ticket is not sine quo non for establishing that the deceased was a
bona-fide passenger.
9. In the fardbeyan as well as in the inquest report it is stated that the
deceased died from fall from the running train. The Railway cannot avoid
liability unless specific exception applies. Accidental fall sometime leads
to being run over either by the same train or another. Even if that is so, the
"intrinsic character" of the mishap remains an accidental fall. Therefore, it
is proved that the deceased died in an untoward accident as per section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
10. Learned Tribunal without considering any evidence and discussing
the materials on record has dismissed the claim application.
11. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is not sustainable and,
accordingly, is set aside.
12. Since the accident took place on 29.03.2019, therefore, in terms of
Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990, Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) is awarded to the
claimants/appellants with interest @ 7.5% from the date of accident which
will be paid by the respondent-Railway within a month of the order.
Misc. Appeal is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Satendra/Pawan
Uploaded
05.12.2025
