SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 515

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
SAU MADHAVI SANJAY GURAV – Appellant
Versus
GM WR – Respondent
OA (II u)/MCC/299/2018



BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI Claim Application No: OA (II U) / MCC /0299/2018 Sau Madhavi Sanjay Gurav Age: 48 years, Residing at: House No.669, D. Ward, Kumbhar Galli, Shahu Garden Road, Kolhpaur Dist. Kolhapur (Maharashtra)

… APPLICANT Versus Union of India, Through the General Manager, Western Railway, CCG, Mumbai. … RESPONDENT Appearances:

None appeared : Advocate for Claimant Ms. Ms. D. Fernandes : Advocate for Respondent:

Date of Institution: 06.03.2018 Date of Judgement: 27.05.2025 CORAM: Shri. Virender Kumar Goyal, Member (J) /Rct /

Ahmedabad @ Circuit Bench at Rct Mumbai &

Shri. Mohit Sinha, Member (T) RCT, Mumbai JUDGEMENT

1. The present Claim Application is filed by the Applicant under Sec. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sec. 123 (c) (2) & Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, for compensation arising out of an alleged untoward incident, occurred during the course of working a Railway, involving injuries sustained to her.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the Counsel for the Applicant nor Applicant have been present on the date of arguments. Hence this case is being decided on merit ex-parte in terms of Sec. 18 (1) of the Railway Claims tribunal Act, 1987.

The factual matrix of the matter in nut-shell is as below:

3. It is contended that Sau Madhavi Sanjay Gurav (herein after referred as injured), resident of Kolhapur, was a Housewife. On 18.05.2017, she was travelling from Pune to Delhi railway station by Pune–Hazarat Nijamuddin Express. When the train reached near Vapi railway station, on PF no. 1 due to jerk and jostling by the co-passengers the injured fell down from the running train. She was escorted to hospital, for medical treatment. It is further submitted by the injured that she was in possession of a Railway ticket bearing PNR No.

8358828861 Ex. Pune to NZM Railway Station on record Exb. A-1.

4. In response to notice, Respondent–Railway Authority appeared and opposed the claim application. The respondent filed Written Statement and also produced on record the DRM report pertains to investigation conducted by IPF/RPF/Vapi, accompanied with other relevant police papers marked as “R-1”. It has been contented that on 18.05.2017 train number 04417 Dn Pune Nizamuddin Ac Special Exp left Vapi Railway Station, there was chain pulling on PF no. 01. On hearing the commotion of the passengers, SS/Vapi came out of his office and saw that a lady passenger was lying under the train. GRP/Vapi and RPF/Vapi along with the porters took the lady person out from under the train. After providing first aid, 108 ambulance was called. On 108 arrival, lady was sent to Haria Hospital, Vapi. The GRP registered a case vide injury no. 15/2017. The GRP has mentioned about the recovery of a Railway ticket bearing PNR No. 8358828861 Ex. Pune to NZM Railway Station from the possession of victim. The injured stated in her statement that she was travelling in coach B/1 of train no. 04417 Dn Pune Nizamuddin Ac Special Exp on seat no. 33,34,23. The train arrived at Vapi station at around 11:00 am. When the train halted, she alighted on the station to buy a water bottle. When the train started, she fell while boarding the train. Therefore, the incident occurred due to own negligence of the injured for which the Railway authorities are not responsible. There is no fault of railway administration and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim compensation.

5. In view of pleading of both parties, and relevant documents produced on record, this Tribunal framed the following issues, for just and proper adjudication of Claim Application on merit within ambit of law.

Issues Answers
1. Whether the injured was travelling by train as a bonafide passenger? Yes
2. Whether the injured fell down from the train, as alleged and the incident would be described as an untoward incident in terms of Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? Yes
the nature o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top