Bombay High Court
Rukmabai Ravi Ramchettywar And Ors vs Union Of India, Thr General Manager, … on 22 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:11545
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.437 OF 2017
1. Rukmabai w/o. Ravi Ramchettywar,
Age : 34 years,Occu : Nil,
R/o. H No. 3-2-270, Bhagyanagar,
Adilabad, Tq. & Dist. Adilabad
Telangana
2. Shiwani D/o. Ravi Ramchettywar,
Age : 11 years, occu : Nil,
R/o. As above.
3. Bhawani D/o.Ravi Ramchettywar,
Age : 6 years, Occu : Nil,
R/o. As above.
(Appellant Nos.2 and 3 Minor Under ... Appellants
Guardian of real mother Appellant No.1) (Orig. Claimants)
Versus
Union of India,
Through General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad, (Andra Paradesh) ... Respondent
...
Shri. Pavankumar S. Agrawal, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the Respondent / Sole.
....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : 07/04/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 22/04/2025
JUDGMENT :
–
. This Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘Act of 1987’) by the Original Claimants /
2
Applicants against dismissal of their Claim Petition / Application
bearing O.A. (llu)/ NGP/2014/0053 by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) by
Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2016.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to this Appeal, are as follows :
2.1. The Appellants filed the above referred Claim Petition
before the learned Tribunal on 14.02.2024 contending that they were
the Wife and Children of one Deceased Ravi s/o. Malayya Ramchettywar
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’). On 01.01.2014, Deceased
having Railway Ticket for Kinwat to Adilabad, boarded Nanded-
Adilabad Intercity Express Train No.17410 from Kinwat Railway Station
and was standing near door of the compartment of the train. When the
said train reached at Gate No.12 near Kinwat Railway Station, Deceased
fell down due to sudden jerk to the running train and accidentally came
under the wheels of the running train and died on the spot. The
Authorities came to know about the same. The Police arrived at the spot
of accident. The dead body was moved to the hospital for Post-mortem
and thereafter handed over to the Brother of Deceased on 02.01.2014.
The Appellants claimed the compensation from the railway to the extent
of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh) with interest @12% from the date of
3
accident till its realization. The necessary documents were submitted
along with the Claim Petition.
2.2. The Claim Petition was resisted by the Railway
Administration by filing Written-statement on 09.06.2015. In the
Written-statement they denied the case and claim of the Appellants. It
was contended that during the statutory enquiry by the Railway
Administration, it was revealed from the Gate man on duty at Gate
No.12 at the relevant time, that when he went to close the gate for
passing of the train, no dead body was seen in the vicinity, however,
after passing of the train when the Gate man went to open the gate, he
saw dead body of a person cut into two (2) pieces at the distance of 18
(eighteen) to 20 (twenty) meters from the gate. As there was nothing
to show that the person had fallen down from the train, neither there
was any jerk to the train and considering that, the dead body was cut
into two (2) pieces, it was the case of suicide. It was contended that the
Appellants were not entitled for compensation and the interest.
2.3. The learned Tribunal framed the issues on 09.06.2015,
which reads as under :
“ISSUES
1. Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the
deceased within the meaning of Section 123 (b) of the
Railways Act ?
2. Whether deceased was a bona fide passenger of the
train on the relevant day, with valid journey ticket?
4
3. Whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a
result of an untoward incident as alleged in the claim
application within the meaning of Section 124-A r/w. 123 (c)
of Railways Act?
4. To what order / relief?”
2.4. The Widow of Deceased filed her Affidavit dtd.18.05.2016
along with the Original Railway Ticket, Certified copies of the
investigation done by the Police in A.D. Report No.03/14, Spot
Panchanma, Inquest, Post-mortem Report, Receipt towards the dead
body, Railway Memo, Death Certificate, Ration Card and Aadhar Card of
the Appellants. She was cross-examined on behalf of the Railway
Administration.
2.5. The Railway Administration examined the Gate man /
Points man who was on duty at the gate near the spot of accident. He
was cross-examined on behalf of the Appellants. The other documents in
respect of the investigation and the Report form part of the proceedings
of the Claim Petition.
2.6. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Tribunal
dismissed the Claim Petition.
2.7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants
that the Railway Ticket was found with the Deceased and this
establishes that he was the bona fide passenger of the said train. The
5
learned Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition on two (2) counts i.e. (1)
Deceased was boarding the running train, and (2) Body was cut into two
(2) pieces. There was nothing in the statutory enquiry that Deceased
fell down while boarding the train or committed suicide. The Report of
statutory enquiry was contrary to the evidence on record. It was
nowhere the case of Railway Administration that the ticket found with
Deceased was fake. Without considering the material available on
record, the Claim Petition was dismissed. The Appeal be allowed and
compensation along with interest be granted to the Appellants. In
support of his submissions, he relied on (1) Copy of Railway Passengers
(Manner of investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, (2)
Notification dated 07.06.1990 issued under the Railway Accidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short, ‘the said Rules’), (3) Notification
dated 25.10.1997 issued under the said Rules, (4) Notification dated
22.12.2016 issued under the said Rules, (5) Reported Judgments, which
would be considered in the later part of the Judgment.
2.8. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Respondent / Railway Administration that, Deceased was trying to
board the running train when the train left the platform. It is nobody’s
case that, someone was on railway track. There is no eye witness to the
accident. No other passenger saw the incident of falling down of
Deceased from the train and had it been so, someone would have raised
6
shouts. The Railway enquiry do not support the claim. The distance of
place where the body parts were found was material and the learned
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material available on record. The
case would fall under clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A
of the Act of 1989. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of the
witness examined by the Railway Administration, to discard his
evidence. The Enquiry Report of the Railway is accepted by the
Tribunal. The Appellants – Claimants failed to prove their case and
therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and
Order.
3. The relevant provisions of Act is the Railways Act, 1989 (for short,
‘Act of 1989’), are reproduced below.
“Section 2 (29) “passenger” means a person travelling with a valid pass
or ticket.”
“123. Definitions. – In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise
requires,–
(a) .....
(b) .....
(i) .....
(ii) .....
(iii) .....
(iv) .....
(c) "untoward incident" means--
(1)(i) .....
(ii) .....
7
(iii) .....
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers."
“124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.–
When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident
occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of the railway administration
such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the
dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an
action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway
administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as
may be prescribed and to that extent only of loss occasioned
by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such
untoward incident:Provided that no compensation shall be
payable under this section by the railway administration if the
passenger dies or suffers injury due to–(a)suicide or
attempted suicide by him;(b)self-inflicted injury;(c)his own
criminal act;(d)any act committed by him in a state of
intoxication or insanity;(e)any natural cause or disease or
medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes
necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.”
4. Heard both the sides and perused the Record.
5. There is no dispute on the aspect that the Appellants are the
dependents, being the widow and children of Deceased. Admittedly, the
Widow i.e. Claimant No.1, who examined herself in support of the Claim
Petition, was not the eye witness to the incident as is clear from her
cross-examination. Even the witness examined by the Railway
Administration, in his cross-examination admitted that, he had not seen
the incident personally. It is clear that there is no evidence of the eye
witness to the incident. Therefore, the case has to be decided on the
basis of material available on record. There is no quarrel with
respect to the observation made by the learned Tribunal in paragraph
8
no.17 of the impugned Judgment that, ‘A civil case is decided on the
balance of probabilities and considering the specific case.’
6. Both the sides took me through the documents brought on
record during the proceedings of Claim Petition before the learned
Tribunal. There is Enquiry Report under the signature of Divisional
Protection Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Nanded along with
the Report under the signature of Inspector, Railway Protection, Posts-
Hujur Sahib, Nanded along with the map of spot of incident and the
copies of Statements recorded during the course of enquiry. These
papers show that, when the Gate man, named Santosh Raghunath Gule
i.e. witness examined by the Railway Administration, was on duty at
Gate No.12 on 01.01.2014 and while opening the gate after the train
passed, he noticed dead body in two pieces and he informed the Station
Master. After some time the Police came on the spot of incident and
performed the required Panchanamas. There are Police papers of the
Railway Police in respect of the enquiry of Accidental Death Report. The
said papers show that the Railway Ticket dated 01.01.2014 from Kinwat
to Adilabad was found in the upper pocket of the shirt of Deceased.
Admittedly, it is not the case of the Railway Administration that the said
ticket was fake. The original Ticket is brought on record with the Claim
Petition. This clearly establishes that Deceased was in possession of a
valid train ticket.
9
7. According to the witness examined by the Railway
Administration ‘when he was closing the railway gate at about 18:27
hrs, no person was seen, however, after the train passed he saw two
pieces of man and the people standing near the closed gate, told him
that one person brought Deceased on his motorcycle and Deceased was
trying to board running train and in that process he fell down’. However,
the Report of enquiry done by the Railway Administration nowhere
speak that the said gateman who saw the dead body in two pieces, was
informed by the people standing near the gate that, Deceased was
brought by a person on motorcycle and he fell down while boarding the
running train. The said version of the said witness of the Railway
Administration do not find support or corroboration from his previous
statement or document of the enquiry done by the Railway
Administration. The statement of the Gate man, who was examined by
the Railway Administration before the learned Tribunal, recorded during
the said enquiry is completely silent in respect of his version in the
Affidavit that, the people near the Railway gate told him that Deceased
was brought on motorcycle and fell down while boarding the running
train.
8. There is communication dated 01.01.2014 which is brought
on record in the evidence of the witness examined by the Railway
10
Administration at Exh. R-1, which is the communication by the witness
i.e. Gate man, addressed to the Station Master of Kinwat Railway
Station in respect of the said incident. The said communication is also
completely silent in respect of the said version of the witness, stated in
the evidence before the Tribunal. This communication which is the first
in point of time by the Gate man to his Superior speaks that, after the
Train No.17410 ‘UP’ Nanded-Adilabai Intercity Express passed from the
gate and he opened the gate, the people shouted that a man was cut and
he saw that one person was lying at the distance of Ten (10) Meters
from the gate. One communication at Exh. R-2 is under the signature
and stamp of Station Master addressed to SI/GRP/KNVT asking to check
and take the action, speak that ‘one unknown person aged about 35 –
40 years old Run over 17410……’.
9. In the Written-statement the Railway Administration came
up with the case that the body was cut into two (2) pieces and therefore,
it appears to be the case of suicide.
10. The above referred material available on record shows that,
the Railway Administration came up with different stories or versions at
different times. It is clear that the version in respect of the incident put
forth by the Railway Administration is inconsistent and varies from time
to time. Even if the evidence of the Gate man examined by the Railway
11
Administration is considered, it finds no corroboration / support with
the previous documents or his previous statement, and therefore it is not
possible to accept the said version as it is. On the contrary, the police
papers of the Railway Police pertaining to the enquiry in the A.D.R.
No.03/14, comprising Accidental Death Report addressed to the Taluka
Magistrate, Kinwat, Spot Panchanama, Inquest and dead body receipts
shows that, Deceased died of falling down from Nanded – Adilabad
Intercity Express Train. The Accidental Death Report at Exh.A-37
(English Version at A-38) shows that, against Point No.3 in respect of
‘Name, age and address of informant, it is mentioned – On duty S. S.
Railway Station Kinwat.’ This shows that, information about the said
incident, which speak of death of Deceased after falling from the
aforesaid train was given by the Railway Administration i.e. by On duty
S. S. Railway Station, Kinwat. This goes to show that, the initial version
of the Railway Administration in respect of the incident was that,
Deceased died of a fall from the aforesaid express train. The conclusion
drawn by the Railway Administration from the enquiry as seen from the
Report under the signature of Divisional Security Commissioner /
Nanded, Railway Protection Force, Nanded is that, it was doubtful that
Deceased died of falling from the running train. The conclusion was not
certain.
12
11. Coming to the version of the Claimants, it is that, Deceased
died due to a fall from the said train. This version of the Claimants finds
corroboration from the Police papers of the A.D. Report, which was soon
after the incident. The learned Tribunal accepted the evidence of RW-1
i.e. witness examined by the Railway Administration that the Deceased
while trying to board the running train fell down and came under the
wheels of the train and held that the Claimants failed to prove that
Deceased had fallen down from the train. It is not possible to concur
with the said conclusion for the reason that, there are the different
versions of the Railway Administration at different stages. The version
of Railway Administration was not consistent, whereas the ADR enquiry
made by the Railway Police supports and corroborates the case of the
Claimants. The material available on record, as discussed above, clearly
shows that the cause of death of the said Deceased fall within the
provision of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Act of 1989 i.e. accidental falling
of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, and do not fall
within the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 which categorises
the cases in which the Railway Administration is not liable to pay the
compensation.
12. The learned Advocate for the Appellants relied on the
Judgment in Union of India (UOI) vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and
Ors, (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein it is observed that, ‘no doubt, it is
13
possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression
‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’, the
first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the
train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being
that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board train and
falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation
in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it
should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and
technical one.’
13. In the light of the above referred discussion based on the
material available on record, which clearly establishes that Deceased
was the passenger within the definition of the term ‘Passenger’ and his
death was due to accidental falling from the train carrying passengers
within the meaning of provisions referred in para no.3 above, the Appeal
deserves to be allowed. The incident is of January-2014 and the
compensation payable for death under the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 at that
point of time was Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakh) by virtue of
Notification dated 25.10.1997. Subsequently, by way of amendment
in the Rules in the year 2016, the Notification dated 22.12.2016
came to be issued, by which the amount of compensation
payable for death is revised and determined as Rs.8,00,000/-
(Rs. Eight Lakh). There is nothing to show that there is
14
subsequent Notification amending the said amount for compensation of
death under the said Rules. Though the Appellants have claimed the
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh) with interest thereon,
useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Union of India (UOI) vs. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362,
cited by the leaned Advocate for the Appellants which was the Appeal
against the Award of compensation under Section 124-A of the Act of
1989. One of the issue framed and decided therein was – (1) Whether
the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of
compensation as on the date of Application / incident or on the date of
Order awarding compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the
earlier decisions on the aspect and answered the said issue in para
no.15.4 of the said Judgment as under :
“15.4. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will
be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with
interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on
the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so
calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of
the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to
higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the
awards which have already become final and where limitation
for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by
itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in
Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra)
stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in
Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject
and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as
applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with
reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of
beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date
of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with
interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.”
15
13.1. Therefore, in view of the above, the Appellants will be
entitled to the total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh)
which would be the amount higher than unrevised amount with interest.
Hence, the following Order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed with costs.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2016 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in O.A. (llu)/
NGP/2014/0053 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Appellants – Claimants shall be entitled for the compensation
of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh) as prescribed in the Notification
issued by the Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016 from the
Respondent.
(iv) The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Tribunal.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/04/2025 18:23:00