IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.526 of 2019 Mrs.Pushpa Rajnath Sharma and ors .. Appellants Versus Union of India, through General Manager, .. Respondent Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai.

…

Mr.Vasant N. More for the appellants.

Mr.T.J. Pandian for the respondent.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. RESERVED : 25th APRIL, 2022 PRONOUNCED : 14th JUNE, 2022.

PC:-

1 The dependents of one Rajnath Sharma, who met with an accident on 20/4/2012, on being denied the compensation by the Railway Tribunal Act, Mumbai, vide impugned judgment dated 31/10/2018, have filed the present First Appeal. The appellants claim that the Tribunal has ignored an important facet of the claim, to the effect that the deceased fell down from the running train and therefore, his case was covered u/s.123(c)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, as an untoward incident, but on the contrary, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was run over by a train and his dependents were disentitled for compensation. The Appeal also challenge the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, though a ticket was recovered from his pocket, but, since it was tattered condition, the details could not be ascertained.

2 The deceased is one Sujit Sharma, aged 16 years, resident of Chembur, Mumbai, a labourer, who was travelling in second class compartment of local train from Dadar to Chembur station via Kurla on 20/4/2012. It is alleged that while he was enroute to Chembur and when the train reached near Sion station between km No. 12/12 and 13/13, due to push from the passengers inside, he accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained head injuries and died instantly. He left behind his mother – applicant no.1 and all other applicants who are his siblings as dependents. It is averred that the ticket on which the deceased was travelling, was recovered from his possession during the inquest proceedings, but it was found in a torn condition and since it was stained with blood, the particulars on the ticket were not legible.

3 The claim came to be instituted by the dependents of Sujit Sharma, to the tune of Rs.Four lakhs along with interest @

9% from the date of application till the actual payment.

In support of the claim, the applicant placed on record the copies of supporting documents in form of Inquest Panchnama, post mortem report, police report etc. The post mortem report opined the cause of death as ‘Hemorrhagic shock due to polytrauma (unnatural)’.

4 The Railway contested the claim by filing written statement as well as placing on record the DRM report. The written statement heavily relied upon the statutory investigation report prepared by the Sr.DSC/RPF/CSMT and accepted by DRM, Mumbai, which recorded as under :-

“from the report of Inspector/RPF/DR it is observed that GRP/DR has mentioned Railway ticket, but without valid particular, in the inquest panchnama. Hence, prima facie, he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. Moreover, the deceased presence in Railway premises was unauthorised and he had knocked down by unknown local train, while crossing railway track, in negligent and careless manner as per the report of Inspector/RPF/DR and the inquest panchnama of GRP/DR, as well as Dy.SS/Sion’s Memo, which is an offence punishable u/s.147 of The Railway Act, 1989”.

It was pleaded that the incident occurred only due to negligence and criminal act of the deceased.

5 The Railway also contested the claim on the ground that deceased was not at all a bonafide passenger, since it is evident that one railway ticket was recovered, but it was lacking any valid particulars and the copy of the railway ticket is not affixed to the original application and therefore, the claim that the deceased was travelling from Dadar to Chembur via Kurla by local train on second class compartment holding a valid railway ticket, could not be sustained. The written statement also pleaded that the application is bad-in-law