Safiya Malik

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar set aside a Railway Claims Tribunal decision which had denied compensation for a passenger's death, terming the Tribunal's reasoning as unfounded and unsupported by evidence. The court allowed the appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 to the appellant, Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant, in her capacity as legal representative of the deceased claimant.

The bench held that the death of the deceased passenger fell within the meaning of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It also affirmed that the appellant, though having earlier withdrawn her claim, was entitled to prosecute the appeal following the death of her father and co-claimant as the legal heir. The court found the Tribunal's conclusion to be premised on assumptions rather than pleadings or evidence and reiterated that compensation in such cases is governed by the principle of strict liability. The court concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident and that his legal heir was entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

The appeal before the Bombay High Court arose out of a judgment dated 16 June 2014, rendered by the Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The appellants, originally Mahadev Krishna Tambe and his daughter, Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant, had filed a claim seeking compensation for the death of Amit Tambe, son of Mahadev and brother of Sonal, under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

On 25 July 2011, the deceased, aged 25 and unmarried, was travelling from Malad to Mahalaxmi station using a valid second-class season ticket issued on 17 July 2011. According to the applicants, between Lower Parel and Mahalaxmi stations, the deceased accidentally fell from an unknown running local train and sustained fatal injuries, succumbing to them before being admitted to a hospital. The applicants based their claim on the premise that the death resulted from an "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

The respondent Union of India contested the claim, denying the occurrence of an "untoward incident" and arguing that the evidence did not establish how the deceased had died. They relied on the Charge Report prepared at Lower Parel station which noted the body of an unidentified male lying dead between 7/05 and 7/06 km marks. The respondent also asserted that the onus was on the applicants to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

During the Tribunal proceedings, evidence was recorded from Mahadev Krishna Tambe (AW1), the father of the deceased. Smt. Sonal, the sister and co-applicant, withdrew her claim by affidavit.

After evaluating the accident memo and inquest panchnama, the Tribunal found that the applicants had failed to prove the death occurred due to an "untoward incident." The Tribunal reasoned that the deceased was found on the "Up through fast track next to STA line," which did not align with the theory that he fell from a slow train, as those trains operate on the slow track. The Tribunal concluded that merely holding a valid ticket did not necessarily prove that the deceased was on the train at the time of the incident.

During the appeal, it was noted that Mahadev, the father and primary claimant, had passed away. The appeal was therefore prosecuted solely by Smt. Sonal in her capacity as legal representative of Mahadev. The case thereby also involved a secondary issue: whether Sonal had the legal standing to continue the appeal.

Advocate Mr. Mohan Rao, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal had erred in its approach, particularly by inventing a defence not pleaded by the respondent and drawing conclusions unsupported by the record. He argued that the finding regarding the location of the incident and its incompatibility with slow train routes was speculative and based on assumptions rather than evidence.

Mr. Rao also submitted that since the deceased was found with a valid second-class season ticket and identity card, there was no basis to question his status as a bona fide passenger. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and Union of India v. Rina Devi to argue for a liberal and purposive interpretation of "untoward incident" in light of the Railways Act's beneficial character.

Regarding the issue of locus standi, Mr. Rao maintained that since Mahadev was a dependent as per Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, and the legal representative of a deceased dependent can continue proceedings, the appeal did not abate. He relied on precedents including Kiran Damodar Paygode v. Union of India to support the appellant's entitlement to pursue the claim.

In reply, Mr. Suresh Kumar, counsel for the respondent, contended that the Tribunal’s findings were valid, particularly as the Tribunal Member was a technical expert and thus entitled to draw inferences about the track layout. He also challenged the appellant’s locus, arguing that Sonal, being a married sister, did not qualify as a dependent under Section 123(b), and having previously withdrawn her claim, could not revive it.

The court addressed the Tribunal’s reasoning first. Referring to the evidence on record, the court stated, “The Charge Report as well as Accident Memo submitted by the Station Master, Lower Parel Station, vouch for the same.” It also noted the inquest panchnama recorded that the deceased “might have fallen down from an unknown local train and sustained grievous injuries on head.”

The judgment detailed the injuries from the panchnama: “On right side head 2-inch injury and skull is broken and heavy bleeding...on left hand elbow is fracture and left leg 2-inch injury is seen...”

The court then questioned the Tribunal’s logic in dismissing the incident as non-accidental. It observed, “In the face of the aforesaid material, it has to be seen whether the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant failed to establish that the deceased died in an ‘untoward incident’, is sustainable.”

It stressed that accidental falling from a train is explicitly recognised as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), and that the statute creates a no-fault liability under Section 124-A. The court quoted: “The provisions of Section 124-A, in essence, incorporate the principle of strict liability.”

In analysing the expression “accidental falling,” the court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, quoting: “Beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation.”

Addressing the evidence, the court found: “The testimony of Mahadev (A1) that the deceased was travelling from Malad to Mahalaxmi and fell off the running train, went completely unimpeached...” and “Nor the respondent adduced evidence to show that it was impossible for the deceased to fell off at the place where he was found...”

The court noted that the Tribunal had made speculative findings without basis: “The finding of the learned Member are in the nature of surmises and conjunctures premised on a hazardous guess.”

Regarding the nature of the injuries, the court said: “The injuries on the head and face...appear more compatible with the case that the deceased fell off the train carrying the passengers.”

On the question of Sonal’s right to prosecute the appeal, the court discussed the statutory scheme under Sections 123(b), 124-A, and 125. It said: “If the claimant falls within the ambit of sub-clause (i)...nothing more is required to be proved.” Further, “The liability of the railway administration becomes absolute.”

It relied on Krishnakumar G. v. Union of India and Rameshwar Manjhi v. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery, concluding: “The right to receive compensation crystallizes as of the date of death of the deceased passenger and... does not defeat such crystalized or vested right in the event the dependent / claimant dies after preferring an appeal.”

The High Court directed that the appeal be allowed and issued the following orders. It held: “The appeal stands allowed with costs.”

Also Read: SECL Cannot Deny Job To Landowner’s Son | Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Rejection Order | Court Invokes Promissory Estoppel Over Employment Promise

The court quashed the impugned judgment and award: “The impugned judgment and award stand quashed and set aside.”

It allowed the original application for compensation: “OA No. (IIU)/MCC/2011/0891 stands allowed.”

The respondent was directed to pay compensation: “The respondent do pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant (A2), in her capacity as the legal representative of Mahadev Krishna Tambe (A1), within a period of one month from today.”

The court specified interest in case of default: “In default, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till payment or realization.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. Mohan Rao, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, a/w Smita Thakur

Case Title: Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant v. Union of India

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:24430

Case Number: First Appeal No. 50 of 2015

Bench: Justice N. J. Jamadar