Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harbhajan Singh Gond vs Union Of India on 10 November, 2025
1 MA-655-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 657 of 2017
RAMAAVATAR @ RAMOTAR PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Vinayak Shah - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ashish Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent no.1.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 653 of 2017
VISHNU PRASAD PRAJAPATI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Vinayak Shah - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ranjan Agnihotri with Shri O.P. Agnihotri - Advocate for the respondent
no.1.
MISC. APPEAL No. 655 of 2017
HARBHAJAN SINGH GOND
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Vinayak Shah - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Dhananjay Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Reserved on - 15.10.2025
Pronounced on - 10.11.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 10-11-2025
18:02:00
2 MA-655-2017
ORDER
Since all three appeals arise from the judgment dated 23.12.2016
passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, therefore, same are being
decided by this common order.
2. The claimants have filed these appeal i.e M.A. Nos. 657/17,
653/2017 and 655/2017 challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed in
OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 / 0299, OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 / 0385 and OA / IIu /
BPL / 2012 / 0251, respectively, by learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhopal.
3. The concise account of the case are that on 16.04.2011, a group of 8
to10 persons went to Maihar for tonsure ceremony of Rajesh (son of
appellant Ramaavtar). While returning on 17.04.2011, they boarded on train
No.51672 (Satna-Itarsi Passenger) which was overcrowded and while the
train started moving, the victims Loli Bai, Indramati and Rajesh fell down
from the train and got trapped and ran over by another train passing at the
very moment resulting into death of all three on the spot. By filing a written
statement, the respondent-Railway denied the accident stating that indeed the
deceased persons were crossing the railway lines, while they were hit by a
passing through train. The written statement was also supported with the
D.R.M. report.
4. After examining the evidence produced, the learned Claims
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were not boarded
on a train and claimants have failed to prove the accident to be an untoward
accident as defined U/s 123 (c) of the Railways Act and thus, the respondent-
3 MA-655-2017
Railway is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that learned Claims
Tribunal erred in holding that the claimants have failed to prove the accident
to be an untoward accident whereas they have produced many evidence in
support of their claims. They have satisfactorily proved that the deceased
persons were boarded on a train having valid journey tickets. The burden lies
upon the Railway to prove the contrary. The learned Claims Tribunal erred
in dismissing the claims filed by the claimants.
6. On the other side, learned counsel for the Railways has argued that
the learned Tribunal has correctly found that the deceased persons were not
boarded on train No. 51672 as the train of said number does not pass through
Maihar Railway Station. The train number 51674 (Satna-Itarsi passenger)
train though passes through the Maihar Railway Station but on that day, it
arrived on 06.34 PM and departed on 06.36 PM whereas the accident
occurred at around 03.30 PM. He has also argued that indeed it is case of
violation of railway rules. The deceased persons were crossing the railway
lines unauthorizedly to reach to other platform and got hit by train No.
19051, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. He
prays for dismissal of appeal.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. After going through the record, however, the Railways has
satisfactorily proved that the deceased persons were not boarded on train
No.51672 as the same did not pass through the Maihar Railway Station on
the date of accident, however, it is found undisputed that the deceased
4 MA-655-2017
persons died by run over by train No. 19051 while crossing the railway lines.
In the opinion of this Court, even if the deceased persons were crossing the
railway tracks unauthorizedly to reach to other platform, the claim for
compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, may still be
maintainable; if it is established that the death occurred due to an "untoward
incident" and that the railway administration failed in its statutory duty to
ensure safety by preventing unauthorized access to the tracks. Contributory
negligence or unauthorized entry alone does not automatically absolve the
railway administration of liability, unless the case falls within the exceptions
provided viz. suicide, self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication,
or natural cause.
9. In the case at hand, the statement of Shyamlal Barman (Loco Pilot)
shows that on 17.04.2011, he was running the train No.19051 and while
passing through Maihar Railway Station, deceased Rajesh (only 3 years old)
came onto the railway tracks and while saving him, two female also came
onto the track and all of three were run over by the train. The said statement
is sufficient to presume that the act of deceased persons was not deliberate,
albeit, to save the child who had no knowledge about the consequance of
crossing tracks, two female also lost their lives. Where passengers cross
tracks due to absence of sufficient preventive measures like fencing,
barricades, announcements, or security by the Railways to restrict the
passenger from crossing the railway lines, particularly on the platforms and
the railway has failed to provide or maintain effective preventive measures,
in the opinion of this Court, the administration cannot escape from liability
5 MA-655-2017
on the ground that the victim crossed unauthorizedly.
10. On perusal of record, this Court finds that the Railway has failed to
prove that they have taken each and every preventive measure to restrict the
persons from crossing the railway lines and, therefore, failure to take such
preventive measures amounts to negligence or breach of statutory duty, and
supports the finding that the death occurred due to an "untoward incident"
under Section 124-A even if the person crossed the tracks; if crossing is
accessible or easy even for a three years child, it implies a systemic failure of
the railway to restrict access.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned
Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claims of the claimants and thus, the
impugned judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed in OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 /
0299, OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 / 0385 and OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 /
0251 respectively, is hereby set-aside.
12. Consequently, all three appeals stand allowed and disposed of.
13. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, is directed to award the
compensation to the claimants in accordance with the Rules and guidelines
prevailing at the relevant point of time.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
mn
