1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants, who are dependents of the deceased Mr. Arogyaraj Chetiyar, to challenge an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (‘Tribunal’), whereby the original application came to be rejected on the ground that Mr. Arogyaraj Chetiyar did not die on account of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. I have heard Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the original applicants and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Railways.

3. On 20 June 2009, the deceased met with an accident near Jogeshwari Railway Station at around 14:13 hrs. He was admitted to Cooper Hospital at around 14:50 hrs. and, thereafter, moved to K.E.M. Hospital.

4. The deceased expired on the same day at 22:00 hrs. while undergoing treatment at the hospital. The postmortem was carried out at K.E.M. Hospital.

5. The Applicants, thereafter, made an application to the Tribunal for compensation under the Railways Act which came to be rejected and it is on this backdrop that the present appeal has been filed by the applicants.

6. The only issue which arises for my consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and further the incident does not fall within an “untoward incident” as defined by the Railways Act, 1989.

7. The first issue which needs to be addressed is whether the deceased were a bonafide passenger. As per the police report dated 20 June 2009, two railway tickets, issued at 13:51 hrs. for travel from Goregaon to Churchgate was found from the pocket of the deceased. The tickets are enclosed in the compilation of document at page 96. The Tribunal after giving a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger has given a finding that issue no.1 is to be decided against the applicants. In my view, this finding is self-contradictory and also contrary to the material on record which I have referred to above. There appears to be non-application of mind by the Tribunal on this issue in its operative part in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. In any case, I am satisfied based on the police report and the ticket which is enclosed in the compilation of documents that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, this finding of the Tribunal is reversed.

8. Coming to the issue of an “untoward incident,” the applicants have led the evidence of co-passenger who was traveling alongwith deceased. He was cross examined by the railways. In the evidence of the co-passenger, he has stated that at 13:30 hrs. (1.30 p.m.), he met the deceased near his house and both decided to go to Churchgate. They purchased two tickets to travel from Goregaon to Churchgate Railway Station and the tickets were kept with the deceased. The co-passenger also stated that they boarded a fast local train going towards Churchgate Railway Station and near Jogeshwari Railway Station due to excessive rush, the deceased accidentally fell down from a moving local train. He alighted at Andheri Station and returned back to Jogeshwari Railway Station and found the deceased in an injured condition. He also in his evidence stated that police did not record his evidence.

9. Though the co-passenger was a relevant witness, who had filed affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief and was also cross examined, the Tribunal has not referred to his evidence in the impugned order at all. The contention of the railways is that this evidence cannot be considered at all based on paragraph 2 of the affidavit of evidence in which the co-passenger states that at about 13:30 hrs. (1:30 p.m.), he met the deceased whereas the ticket was issued at 12:51 hrs. clearly shows that evidence on the face of it cannot be relied upon. The contention of the railways that the ticket was issued at 12:51 hrs. is not correct. This is evident from a perusal of the ticket and the time of issuing the ticket is also recorded in the police report at page 46 of the compilation of documents and same has also come in the evidence of railways before the Tribunal. It is also important to note that the said evidence admits the timing of the issue of ticket was 13:51 hrs. I have already observed above that the ticket was issued not at 12:51 hours but at 13.51 hrs. and therefore, this contention of the railways has to be rejected.

10. The Tribunal gravely erred in not considering crucial evidence of the co-passenger in its impugned order. Normally, the matter would have been remanded but in this case, the accident is of the year 2009 and we are in the year 2026 and the Tribunal has not considered crucial evidence. Therefore, to avoid any further delay, this Court itself is examining the crucial evidence. Therefore, on this count, the request made by the railways to remand the matter is rejected.

11. In the Station Master Report, which is the first document prepared after the incident, the reason given for the accident is “found lying unconscious injured on head.” The reason “hit by unknown train while trespassing” is not ticked. Therefore, the submission made by the railways and confirmed by the Tribunal that the deceased was hit by an unknown train while trespassing cannot be accepted. If that would have been the case, then the Station Master would have ticked the said reason in his memo.

12. The contention that at the spot of accident, it is common tendency of the people to cross railway tracks since both sides have slum cannot be accepted. There is no eyewitness who has stated that the deceased was crossing the track and was hit by an unknown local train. The evidence of the Railway Police on this count also cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The evidence of the Railway Police states that Head Constable Mr. Shinde had prepared inquest panchnama on 21 June 2009, after one day of the incident and he admits that he was not an eyewitness to the incident. Merely because the spot is common for people to cross the railway tracks it would not mean that at the time of the accident, the deceased was crossing the track. In my view, the evidence led by the railways does not support the case that the deceased died while crossing the track since there is no eyewitness to the incident. If this was a common spot for people to cross the tracks then, there would have been some eyewitness and in any case, no one has seen the deceased crossing the railway track. Therefore, on this count, the contention of the railways that the deceased died while crossing the railway track is based on suspicion and surmises and cannot be accepted.

13. The inquest panchnama was prepared on 21 June 2009, in which it is recorded that the Panchas have opined that the deceased died while crossing railway track. I failed to understand that these Panchas who were not eyewitness to the incident how they can express their views that the deceased was crossing the track and was hit by an unknown train. Furthermore, the inquest panchnama was recorded on 21 June 2009 which is after the day of incident and therefore, even on this count, the opinion of the Panchas cannot be accepted.

14. The Tribunal relied upon evidence of the railways who produced Head Constable-Mr. Shinde, who, on the next day of the incident, visited the hospital. He was not an eyewitness to the incident. In his evidence, he has stated that based on report prepared by Police Nayak-Mr. Pirgade, he had written that deceased died while crossing the tracks since it is a common spot for crossing the railway track. Mr. Shinde did not have any personal knowledge of the incident and Mr. Pirgade who had prepared the report did not step into the witness box. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of Mr. Shinde for coming to conclusion that deceased died while crossing the tracks.

15. The Tribunal has observed that the neck of the deceased was cut while coming to the conclusion that the incident was not an “untoward incident” and in support of their reasoning that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track. In my view, this finding is not borne out from any material on record and on being pointed out, the learned counsel for the railways could not show me any document in support thereof. If the neck was separated from the body, then the deceased would have died at the spot of the accident itself and not in the hospital. The documents produced by the railway authorities clearly show that there was a head injury and the deceased was taken to Cooper Hospital and from Cooper Hospital to K.E.M. Hospital, where he died at 22:00 hrs. Therefore, this finding of the Tribunal is not borne out from any records, but on the contrary, it is contrary to the material on record. Even the post-mortem report does not say that the neck was separated from the body. Therefore, the Tribunal’s order suffers from perversity even on this count.

16. The submission before the Tribunal by the Railways that the body was found under train is also not borne out by any material on record.

17. The Tribunal is not a medical expert for rendering findings based on nature of injuries that such injuries could have been inflicted only when a person is crossing the track nor have the railways laid any evidence of medical expert to prove so.

18. As per the evidence of the co-passenger, he met the deceased near his house at 13:30 hrs. The timing of issuance of the tickets is 13:51 hrs. for travel from Goregaon Station to Churchgate Railway Station. The accident happened around 14:13 hrs. The distance to travel from Goregaon to Jogeshwari is about 5 to 7 minutes and the time difference between two trains is generally 5-7 minutes. If one connects the dots of timings, it cannot be accepted that the deceased was not travelling in the train at the time of the incident, but was crossing the track near Jogeshwari Station. This chain of events clearly shows that at the time of the incident, the deceased was travelling in the train. These findings are given even if the evidence of the co-passenger is not to be considered. However, in my view, the evidence of the co-passenger supports the plea that the deceased died on account of an accidental fall from a moving train.

19. There are many trains which are Churchgate fast, but upto Andheri Station they are slow. Therefore, it is in this context the co-passenger must have said that they boarded fast train though in cross examination the railways did not ask any question on this issue as to why the witness said fast train when at Goregaon Station, fast train does not halt.

20. As per the written statement of the railways, the deceased was found lying unconscious at platform number 3. The train from Goregaon to Churchgate is from platform number 2. The platform numbers 2 and 3 of Jogeshwari Station are together. It is, therefore, in all probability that when the deceased fell from the train on account of heavy rush as per the evidence of the co-passenger and the platform numbers 2 and 3 of Jogeshwari Station being common, the body was found near platform number 3. Therefore, the contention of the railways today that the body was found on fast track no.4 cannot be accepted since it is contrary to their own written statement.

21. The railways have tendered a site map of Jogeshwari Station in the course of hearing. This map was never produced at the time of the trial and therefore same cannot be considered. Furthermore, the map is of current Jogeshwari Station and not when the incident happened in the year 2009 and therefore same cannot be considered at all. The map only indicates the spot of the incident but it is based on stations existing today and not when incident happened and there has been may changes from 2009 to 2026 at the Jogeshwari Railway Station though electric pole may have remained same.

22. In the cross examination of the co-passenger, it has come on record that they boarded train from platform number 3. The incident in this case happened in the year 2009. The evidence was filed in the year 2014 and the cross examination happened on 17 September 2014. There may be some discrepancies as to from which platform number they boarded the train at Goregaon Station for Churchgate Station but when one considers all the cumulative evidence put together merely on the basis of this discrepancy, it cannot be concluded that the evidence led by the copassenger cannot be relied upon. Even platform numbers 2 and 3 at Goregaon Station is joint.

23. The contention of the railways that body was found on fast track when the train from Goregaon Station is on slow track and therefore, the claim should be rejected cannot be accepted. As per the written statement of the railways, body was found near platform number 3. Jogeshwari platform numbers 2 and 3 are joint. The slow train runs on platform number 2 and track adjoining platform no 3 is a fast track and if the deceased fell near platform no 3 it cannon be concluded that he died because of crossing the tracks.

24. The documents of the railways authorities only states unknown train. It was incumbent upon the railway authorities to provide the details of the train. The movements of the trains are regulated minutely and body was found near platform no.3. Therefore, there is no reason why train number could not be given. Therefore, even on this count, it cannot be said that the deceased did not die on account of an “untoward incident.”

25. The views expressed by me are supported by the decisions of this Court in the cases of Rekha Dilip Sapkale Vs. Union of India(2021 SCC OnLine Bom 437) and more particularly paragraph 12 and Corinna Valentina D’souza & Ors. Vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.1232 of 2014 decided on 18th March 2026) and more particularly paragraph 8 thereof.

26. In view of the above reasoning, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased died not on account of an “untoward incident” as defined in the Railways Act cannot be accepted but on the contrary, the evidence tilts in favour of the original claimants to indicate that the deceased died by accidental fall from a moving train.

27. The claimants to make a claim before the railway authorities alongwith the present order and give their bank details so that the railway authorities can remit Rs.4 lakhs alongwith interest @6% p. a. from the date of accident till today subject to cap of Rs.8 lakhs. Such amount should be remitted within 12 weeks from the date of the original applicants approaching the railways with the present order.

28. Appeal is allowed in above terms.