The court established that the absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation as a bona fide passenger under strict liability principles in railway accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (‘the Act of 1987’ for short), challenging the judgement and order dated 05/03/2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/MCC/0094/2014. By the said impugned order, the claim filed by the Appellants for compensation towards death of their deceased son – Sagar Murlidhar Gadmale, is dismissed.

2. The Appellants are parents of the deceased. It is the case of the Appellants that on 27.08.2013, deceased was travelling by a local train from Dadar to Mansarovar railway station, on the strength of a valid second class railway ticket, when at about 23.10 hrs, the local train reached between Mankhurd and Vashi railway station, due to the rush in the local train and push of the other passengers in the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from running train and died, before he could be admitted to hospital. Deceased was unmarried and was 20 years old.

3. The Respondent-Railway filed written statement took a stand that on thorough investigation, it is found that the injuries sustained by deceased and his eventual death are self-inflicted. It is contended that there is no untoward incident or accident as contemplated under Section 123 and 123A of the Railway Act of 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’). The case of holding valid second class railway ticket is denied. The claim of compensation is denied. The liability was denied.

4. The Tribunal framed issues and held that the Applicants are dependents on the deceased within the meaning of section 123(b) of Railway Act. However, it is held that the Appellants did not prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question on the relevant day. It is further held by the Tribunal that it is a case of knock-down / run-over by the train and therefore not an untoward incident.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the application of evidence is perverse. It is submitted that the GRP, Vashi was informed by station master memo (CMBR) about the incident and then Inquest Panchnama was drawn mentioning that deceased fell down from local train. He submitted that Tribunal can not conclude about nature of injuries, in absence of expert witness opinion, that this is a case of knock-down during track-crossing. He submitted that no suggestion about track-crossing or run- over has been given to Appellants’ witness. He relied on following judgments in support of his case :

(i) Union of India Vs. Rina Devi - (2019) 3 SCC 572

(ii) Rekha Dilip Sapkale Vs. Union of India ( Bom.H.C. FA/1097/2017 Order dt. 23.03.2021 )

(iii) Raziya Abdul Kadir Shaikh Vs. Union of India ( Bom.H.C. FA/939/2019 Order dt. 24.01.2022 )

(iv) Pinto Promothonath Sen and Anr. Vs. Union of India (Bom.H.C. FA/514/2023 Order dt. 11.02.2025)

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Railways has supported the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that in Station Master Memo (Mankhurd), no reason is stated for incident. He submitted that no ticket was found on the deceased during inquest panchnama. He submitted that considering that the left hand of the deceased was found severed from the body and there were injuries all over body including head and right leg is folded inside, this is a clear case of knock-down / run-over by the train while crossing railway-tracks which is prohibited and therefore a case of self-