Accidental fall from overcrowded passenger train is untoward incident; valid free pass establishes bona fide passenger status even if not found at site; contradictory, hearsay-based railway reports lack credibility in welfare compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants challenging an order dated 17 March 2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal), whereby the application made for grant of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased due to railway accident was rejected on the ground that based on station master memo, inquest panchnama and Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) Report, the incident does not fall within the meaning of “untoward incident” as defined by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. I have heard Mr. Chaugule, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel for the Respondent.

3. The deceased was an employee of the railway working in the commercial department and was posted at Elphinstone Road office of the respondent.

4. On 11 September 2010, the deceased in the afternoon travelled from Virar to Elphinstone to report for work in second shift. After completing his shift, the deceased travelled from Elphinstone to Virar in the midnight at around 3 A.M. When the train was approaching Virar Railway Station, due to heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased fell down and met with an accident. He was declared dead at the time of his arrival at the primary health centre at Virar.

5. The claimants made an application for compensation, which was dismissed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the present appeal is filed.

6. For grant of compensation two conditions have to be satisfied, viz., the deceased should be a “bonafide passenger” and the death should occur on account of an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

7. Insofar as the issue of “bonafide passenger” is concerned, admittedly there is no dispute that the deceased was an employee of the respondent railways. The railway employees are entitled to a free pass and a copy of the free pass granted to the deceased has been annexed with the appeal memo and the same was also annexed alongwith the original application. There is no dispute that this free pass was issued by the railway authorities. Merely because this railway pass as per the inquest panchnama was not recovered at the place of incident, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a “bonafide passenger”. It is possible that this document was not recorded in inquest panchnama, though found from the search of the belongings of the deceased or it is also possible that the free pass was at home and the deceased was travelling without the free pass. In either case, it cannot be disputed that on the date of the accident, the deceased had in his favour a free pass issued by the railway authorities. Merely because, it was not found at the time of the accident or the deceased was not carrying it, cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim moreso when the Court is considering a welfare legislation and even moreso when the deceased was none other, but the employee of the respondent railways. Therefore, this ground of the respondent cannot be accepted for rejecting the claim.

8. In this connection, I draw support from paragraph 6 of order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 659 of 2014 on 8 December 2025 in the case of Union of India vs. Kamal Shikhare & Ors. and same reads as under :-

“6. Admittedly, the local pass was not found at the site of the accident. However, the wife of deceased in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination produced the local pass along with the identity card. It is not disputed th