Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 397 (BOM)

Bapurao Pundalik Jadhav v. Union of India

2025-02-20

SHARMILA U.DESHMUKH

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The First Appeal has been preferred by the Original Claimants against the judgment dated 10 th June, 2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the Claim Application. 2. The Application came to be filed by parents of the deceased contending that the deceased while travelling from Titwala to Shahad, on 12 th March, 2011 accidentally fell down from unknown local train between Titwala and Ambivali Station and suffered serious head injuries. It was further pleaded that the deceased was travelling with II nd class return journey ticket for travel from Shahad to Titwala stations issued on 11 th March, 2011, and the same was lost in the accident. 3. The Appellants examined Applicant No. 1 who is father of the deceased and who deposed that on 11 th March, 2011 in the morning, the deceased had left home informing that he was going to Titwala to attend catering order. On 11 th March, 2011 at about 12:00 p.m., he received the telephone from his son who told him that he had boarded local train and that he will come home. It was further pleaded that the deceased did not return home and upon making inquires, he was informed that on 12 th March, 2011, the deceased had fallen down from unknown local between Titwala and Ambivali railway stations and had expired. He had further deposed that his relative had informed him that on 11 th March, 2011, the deceased had met him at Shahad railway station and in his presence, he had purchased II nd class return ticket from Shahad to Titwala, which was kept in the shirt pocket of the deceased and the same was lost in the accident. Along with the evidence, the Claimants’ produced the Station Master’s memo, Inquest Panchnama, Police Report, copy of the post-mortem report and the statement given to the police. 4. The Claimants also examined one relative Sunil Dagdu Nikam as A.W.-2 who deposed that on 11 th March, 2011, in the morning, he had reached Shahad railway station at about 6:30 a.m. where he met deceased who had purchased the return ticket for travel between Shahad to Titwala and kept the same in his shirt pocket and that he had seen him boarding the train for Titwala. The Respondent neither led any evidence nor produced the Divisional Railway Manager’s report. The Respondent neither led any evidence nor produced the Divisional Railway Manager’s report. In the cross-examination of A.W.-2, it was stated that the deceased was not regularly seen by witness and on date of accident, he had seen him purchasing the return ticket. A.W.-2 had further admitted in the cross-examination that he had not given any statement to the Police. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant has taken this Court through the record and proceedings and would submit that Station Master’s report records that the deceased was found lying on 12 th March, 2011 at about 4:15 hours between Titwala and Ambavli stations. He would further point out the Inquest Panchnama, in which it is opined that the deceased fell down from an unknown local train and hit by pole, and, no articles were found with the deceased. He would further submit that evidence on record of A.W.-1 and A.W.-2 established that the deceased had expired in an “untoward incident” and that he was a bona fide passenger. He would further point out the Written Statement of the Railways wherein it is stated that the deceased died due to his own carelessness and negligence by travelling on the footboard of unknown local train and met with an accident, which is self-inflicted injury. He submits that Trial Court had erroneously considered the Station Master’s Memo as proof of the fact that deceased had not fallen down from the running train and in view thereof, has not gone into the question as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent would submit that A.W.-2 in his cross-examination has deposed that on 11 th March, 2011, in the morning at 6:30 a.m., he had seen the deceased whereas the body was found on 12 th March, 2011 at about 4:30 a.m. lying near the railway tracks. He submits that therefore, it is neither established that deceased died in an “untoward incident” nor that he was a bona fide passenger. He would further submit that the fact that A.W.-2 had not given any statement to the Police assumes significance. 7. The following points would arise for determination:- (i) Whether death of the deceased had occasioned due to “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? (ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 7. The following points would arise for determination:- (i) Whether death of the deceased had occasioned due to “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? (ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? As to Point No. (i) : 8. A.W.-1 had deposed that on 11 th March, 2011, the deceased had left home saying that he was going to Titwala to attend the catering order and deposition of A.W.-2 is specific that he had met the deceased on 11 th March, 2011 at about 6.30 a.m. in morning. The Station Master’s memo records that the deceased was found lying between Titwala and Ambivali railway stations at about 4.15 p.m. The Inquest Panchnama opines that deceased fell down from unknown local train and was hit by railway pole. What assumes significance is the averment in the Written Statement of the Railways, which has accepted that the deceased died due to carelessness and negligence while travelling on the footboard of unknown local train. Once it is accepted by the Railways that the deceased was travelling on footboard of local train, the fact that he was found lying near the tracks on 12 th March, 2011 at 4:15 hours would lead to only one conclusion that the deceased had fallen down from the train. The Tribunal had failed to consider the case of Respondent-Railways that deceased was travelling on footboard of local train. Further, as provided under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the Divisional Railway Manager’s report was not produced for consideration of the Court. Accepting the case of Railways, that as the deceased was travelling on the footboard, the death of deceased had occasioned due to falling down from the train, and it is established that the deceased had died in an “untoward incident”, although it is sought to be contended in the Written Statement that it is a self-inflicted injury. In the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, [2018] 4 S.C.R. 417, the Apex Court had held that there has to be something more than carelessness and negligence in order to qualify as self-inflicted injury. In the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, [2018] 4 S.C.R. 417, the Apex Court had held that there has to be something more than carelessness and negligence in order to qualify as self-inflicted injury. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the present case, it is established by Appellants that the deceased had expired by accidentally falling from the railway train.As such, Point No. (i) is answered in favor of the Claimants. As to Point No. (ii):- 9. The Tribunal has not gone into the question as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in view of its finding against the Appellants on the aspect of “untoward incident”. A.W.-2 had specifically deposed that he had seen the deceased purchasing the return ticket for travel between Shahad to Titwala from ticket counter and the same was kept by deceased in his shirt pocket. The deposition of A.W.-2 is in support of the case that the deceased had purchased a ticket for travel and therefore, it does not make out any difference as to whether A.W.-2 had met the deceased on 11 th March, 2011 in the morning or on 12 th March, 2012. 10. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to demolish the deposition of purchase of ticket by deceased on 11 th March, 2011. The Inquest Panchnama states that nothing was found with the body of deceased, which is improbable as he would be carrying at least nominal amount of cash. It needs to be noted that the deceased was found lying on the tracks in early hours of morning and upon accidental falling from the train, the possibility of articles having been lost cannot be ruled out. The Apex Court in the decision of Rina Devi (supra) has held that absence of ticket does not negative the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger and once Afodavit of relevant facts is filed, the initial burden stands discharged and onus shifts upon the Railways. In the present case, A.W.-2 had specifically deposed that he had seen deceased purchasing the return ticket and thus, the Claimants discharged the initial burden. In the absence of any evidence being led by the Railways and not even filing of the Divisional Railway Manager’s report, the Claimant’s have established their case. Point No. (ii) is answered in favor of Claimants’. 11. In the absence of any evidence being led by the Railways and not even filing of the Divisional Railway Manager’s report, the Claimant’s have established their case. Point No. (ii) is answered in favor of Claimants’. 11. In light of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER: [i] First Appeal is allowed. [ii] The impugned judgment dated 10 th June, 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. [iii] The Respondent-Railways is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- each to the Appellants’ within a period of 8 weeks from the date of furnishing the account details by the Appellants’ to the concerned department. [iv] In event of default of payment as stipulated in Clause No. [iii], the compensation to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order.