[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anshu Sen vs Union Of India on 12 January, 2026
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2601
1 MA-985-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 985 of 2018
ANSHU SEN AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Akshay Kumar Manjhi - Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Manhar Dixit -
Advocate for the respondent.
Reserved on : 06.01.2026
Pronounced on : 12.01.2026
.....................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1987) for
challenging the judgment delivered on 15.12.2017 by Railway Claims
Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Bhopal Bench in case no.
OA/IIu/BPL/2013/0176. Under the impugned judgment claim petition filed
by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts of petition filed by appellants before the Tribunal were that
Smt. Munni Bai, who was on return trip from Allahabad to Vidisha Via
Katni on 10.02.2013, fell off while getting down from an unknown train at
Katni station and was rushed to District Hospital, Katni, where despite
receiving medical treatment, she died of injuries. It was further claimed that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2601
2 MA-985-2018
Marg report was registered at No. 17/2013, inquest report was prepared and
autopsy was done at Government Hospital, Katni. Appellants claiming to be
the sons of deceased requested the Tribunal to award compensation in their
favour as provided under Section 124-A of the Act of 1987.
3 . Respondent-Railway contested the petition and its main contention was
that deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no railway ticket embarking
on a train journey was recovered from the deceased; it was not an untoward
incident defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,1989 (for short
'the Act of 1989'); further the death certificate of the deceased was not filed;
though the principle of strict prove was applicable, appellants did not
discharge the burden of proof. A request was, therefore, made to dismiss the
claim petition.
4. The impugned judgment reveals that 5 issues were framed by the
Tribunal and it came to the finding that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger as no train ticket was recovered from her; the incident was not an
untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. It
further observed that the old lady made mockery of her personal safety by
attempting to deboard from a moving train on the off side and it was criminal
negligence on her part. The Tribunal was also of the view that dependency of
claimants was not established nor even the death certificate of the deceased
was filed. Thus, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
5. Appellants have grievance against these findings and have submitted
that the findings are perverse to the facts and evidence available on record
including the DRM report supporting the claim of appellants. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2601
3 MA-985-2018
submitted that the registration of Marg and holding the postmortem
examination were sufficient proof about the death of deceased-Munni Bai,
still the Tribunal observed that no death certificate was regarding her death.
6. In terms of findings given by the Tribunal and contentions made by both
the parties, this Court has to examine, whether the Tribunal was justified in
rejecting the claim petition and whether it failed to appreciate the evidence in
correct perspective.
7. The learned Tribunal has given the finding that deceased was not a
bonafide passenger as no railway ticket was recovered from her. Journey
tickets from Vidisha to Allahabad and return route were produced as
Annexure-A/7 and appellant No.1-Anshu Sen had stated that deceased (who
was his mother) had travelled from Vidisha to Allahabad and was returning
from Allahabad under these train tickets. Deepak Sen was another witness
examined on behalf of appellants, who confirmed that deceased-Munni Bai
was travelling alongwith him in train and she had a valid ticket for said
journey. Statements of both these witnesses have not been successfully
challenged through cross-examination. In rebuttal of this oral and
documentary evidence, no witness was examined on behalf of Railways.
Thus, the initial burden to prove that the journey was under a valid ticket was
discharged by the appellants, but Railways failed to rebut this evidence.
8. The learned Tribunal going beyond the scope of facts and evidence has
observed that deceased made a mockery of her personal safety by ignoring
her age and physical fitness and attempted to deboard from a moving train on
the off side. According to the Tribunal, it was an imprudent act amounting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2601
4 MA-985-2018
to criminal negligence of deceased. This finding appears to be based only
on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal totally ignored the document of
Annexure-A/1 whereby Thana Prabhari GRP was informed that an unknown
woman while boarding off a train fell down and her leg was imputed. On the
same date, death of the said woman was reported by District Hospital to
GRP Katni and a Marg intimation was registered. The Tribunal also ignored
the police report marked as Annexure-A/6 in which it is mentioned that the
unknown woman was Munni Bai, who was travelling back from Kumbh
Mela, while deboarding the train at Katni station got injured and ultimately
died.
9. The learned Tribunal has placed over reliance on the facts disclosed in
the written statement and also the documents annexed with it. It has also
referred to the statement recorded for the purpose of preparing the DRM
report. It is significant that witness Bhagwan Deen Dwivedi whose statement
find reference in the impugned judgment was never summoned as witness
before Tribunal on behalf of Railways and no opportunity was given to
appellants to cross-examine this witness on the facts alleged by him.
Without affording the opportunity of cross-examination and without there
being any testimony given on oath, reliance on said document could not have
been placed.
10. The Tribunal was of the view that journey tickets produced by
appellants did not belong to the journey under taken by deceased. It may be
contextually relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
i n Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union Of India and Others (Civil Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2601
5 MA-985-2018
No.3799/2023) decided on 16.05.2023 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that mere absence of ticket with an injured/deceased will not negate
claim that he was a bonafide passenger; though the initial burden will be on
claimant which can be discharged by filing affidavit of relevant facts, but this
will be shifted on Railways to come forward and prove that victim was not a
bonafide passenger. Here, Railways has failed to discharge the burden of
rebuttal as no witness has been examined by it, therefore, even if journey
ticket filed under Annexure-A/7 are not communing with the journey of
deceased, this Court has to apply the legal proposition that the initial burden
to prove that deceased was a bonafide passenger has been duly discharged by
appellants through the oral testimony of two witnesses and no rebuttal
evidence has been led by Railways to discredit their statements.
11. The learned Tribunal has also raised the issue that death certificate of
deceased was not filed, but it shows that it was not willing to place reliance
on facts admitted through documents prepared in relation to the death of
deceased-Munni Bai. It also doubted the dependency of appellants for want
of identification proceeding of dead-body, but it overlooked the fact that no
specific pleadings were made by Railways in its written statement to raise
the dependency issue.
12. The learned Tribunal was also of the view that the incident was not an
untoward incident in terms of definition given under Section 123(c)(2) of the
Act of 1989, but this proposition cannot be accepted for the facts mentioned
in Annexures-A/1, A/2, A/6 and even for the DRM report relied upon by the
respondent. This view is further strengthened by the unchallenged statement
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2601
6 MA-985-2018
of Deepak Sen, who claims to have been travelling with deceased-Munni Bai
at the time of fateful incident.
13. Accordingly, it is concluded that deceased-Munni Bai, W/o
Chunnilal was a bonafide passenger, who died on account of injuries
sustained in an untoward incident that occurred when she accidentally fell
down from a passenger train and appellants being sons are her dependents.
In terms of these finding, the appellants are entitled to obtain compensation.
The date of incident was 10.02.2013 and claim petition was filed on
21.03.2013. In terms of the fact that the amount of compensation under Rule
3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990 was amended from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2017
and also in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
o f Kamukayi (supra), it is directed that appellants shall be paid a
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of their mother-Munni Bai in an
untoward railway incident. The amount shall be paid within a period of 60
days from the date of this order, otherwise respondent shall pay the amount
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.
14. Appeal is accordingly decided.
15. Record be sent back to the Tribunal alongwith the copy of this order for
necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
skt/sjk
