In claims under social welfare legislation like the Railways Act, if circumstantial evidence (such as a valid ticket) supports the claimant and the respondent fails to provide evidence that the passenger was crossing tracks, the benefit of doubt favors the claimant as an 'untoward incident'.

##PAGE1##

ppn 1 44.fa-490.16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed

by PRACHI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PRACHI PRANESH

PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR

NANDIWADEKAR

Date: 2026.04.15 FIRST APPEAL NO.490 OF 2016

18:16:34 +0530

1. Durgaiah Komuravelli

Aged 54 years,

2. Smt. Buchavva Komuravelli

Aged 49 years,

Room No.322/26, premana Chawl,

Anand Gadh, Park Site, Vikhroli (W),

Mumbai – 400 079. ….Appellants

(Original Claimants)

V/s.

Union of India

Through General Manager,

Central Railway,

Having his office at G. M. Building,

2^nd Floor, CST Mumbai,

Mumbai – 400 001. .…Respondent

(Original Respondent)

----

Mr. Vaneet Khosla for the appellants.

Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. Gautam Modonwal and Mr. Prasad Sawant for the

respondent.

----

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.

DATED : 15 April 2026

Judgment :

1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants challenging an order

passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 7 January 2015,

whereby the claim for compensation has been dismissed primarily on the

ground that the incident does not fall within the definition of an “untoward

incident” as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. On 24 September 2010, Mr. Srinivas Komuravelli, while travelling at

ppn 2 44.fa-490.16.doc

around 11:30 p.m. from Dockyard Road railway station to Vikhroli railway

station, met with an accident at Sewri railway station and died. The parents

of Mr. Srinivas, thereafter, filed an application for compensation under the

Railways Act, 1989 which came to be dismissed. It is on this background

that the present appeal is filed.

3. I have heard Mr, Khosla, learned counsel for the appellants and

Mr.Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Insofar as the recovery of ticket is concerned, the inquest panchnama

prepared on the date of the incident records that a ticket dated 24

September 2010 for the journey from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road was

recovered along with Hyderabad-Mumbai railway ticket. This is a report

prepared by the authorities of the respondent. Even the police report

prepared confirms the recovery of the ticket for journey from Vikhroli to

Dockyard Road. Therefore, insofar as the issue of “bonafide passenger” is

concerned, the appellants have proved that the deceased was travelling on

a valid ticket.

5. Now coming to the issue of “untoward incident,” the deceased fell on

the track which was going towards CSMT railway station whereas the

deceased was travelling from Dockyard Road to Vikhroli in the opposite

direction. The Dockyard Road railway station is on the right hand side of

the train moving towards Bandra, whereas Sewri railway station is towards

the left. It is possible that due to rush at Sewri railway station, the deceased

who was standing near the door may have been pushed down and lost his

balance from force from left side and had fallen on the track towards CSMT.

At that point of time, the train going towards CSMT would have hit the

deceased resulting in his death.

6. It is important to note that though the timing of the incident was

ppn 3 44.fa-490.16.doc

23:30 hours, there would be passengers on the railway station to witness

the incident. If the deceased was struck by a moving train while crossing

the track at the station, then there would have been passengers on the

platform who would have observed him crossing the track. There is no

evidence or eye witness of any person stating that the deceased was

crossing the track at the time of the incident. Even