1) The present first appeal is filed u/s.23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 5/3/2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in OA (II u)/MCC/1223/2013.

2) The appellants filed Claim Application before the Railway Tribunal. It was the appellants’ case that the husband of the appellant no.1 was travelling as a bonafide passenger from Mumbai Central to Borivali station, on the strength of a second class Railway Privilege Free pass and he accidentally fell down from a running train, thereby sustaining head injuries due to which he died.

3) The Railways filed their reply to the Claim Application and submitted that in the DRM Report dated 16/10/2009, on duty SS/BCT (M) received information that one unknown male lying dead at Km.no.5/104b near point no.126 Platform no.05 at Mumbai Central Railway Station. The Station Master did not mention any reason of the incident in the memo, but the GRP mentioned in the inquest panchanama that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown shunting train and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Trespassing being an offence u/s. 147 of Railways Act and the GRP did not find any travelling authority of railway in possession of the deceased during the personal search, hence, the deceased was not a bonafide railway passenger, therefore, compensation should not be granted to the claimant.

4) Following Issues were thereafter framed by the Tribunal :-

                   i) Whether the Applicant proves that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant day?

                   ii) Whether the Applicant proves that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an Untoward Incident as alleged in the Claim Application?

                   iii) Whether the Applicant proves that she is the dependent of the deceased within the meaning of Sec.123(b) of the Railways Act?

                   iv) To what order/relief?

5) The applicant no.1 had examined herself by filing her affidavit dated 13/2/2019 and produced the relevant documents in evidence. She was cross-examined by the railway’s advocate and thereafter, a friend of the deceased working with the railway was also examined as P.W. No.2. The said witness was also cross-examined by the railway’s advocate. Thereafter, the railway examined the Station Superintendent of the Mumbai Central Railway Station who filed his affidavit. He was cross-examined by the advocate appearing for the applicants. The evidence was thereafter closed.

6) Subsequently, the Tribunal heard learned counsel for the parties and by its judgment and order dated 5/3/2021, dismissed the Claim Application. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Tribunal, the present first appeal has been filed by the original claimant.

7) Following points arise for determination which are as follows:-

                   (a) Whether interference is required in the impugned judgment and order dated 5/3/2021 passed by the Tribunal ?

                   (b) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the time of the incident ?

                   (c) Whether the death of the deceased was occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” ?

                   (d) Whether any compensation is payable to the appellants being the dependents of the deceased ?

8) Mr. Mohan Rao appearing for the appellants-original claimants submitted that the claimant no.1 had filed her affidavit before the Tribunal and narrated that the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding a second class Railway Privilege Free Pass and the deceased accidentally fell down from a running train. Hence, initial burden was discharged and shifted on Railways, and they could not prove their case. The Tribunal failed to consider this fact, hence, the impugned order of Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside.

9) Mr. Shimpi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Union of India has relied upon the following judgments to support his contentions :-

                   i) Malati Yashwant Panchal & anr. vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.505/2019, judgment dtd. 12/11/2025);

                   ii) Mulji Bharumal Sundra & anr. vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.634/2017, judgment dtd. 1/12/2025);

                   iii) Ramdas Omkar Sonawane & ors. vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.273/2021, judgment dtd. 14/8/2025);

                   iv) Ganesh s/o. Waman Waghmare & anr. vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.347/2022, judgment dtd. 9/11/2022);

                   v) Smt. Sangeeta Dinesh Dhokle & anr. vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.1370/2017, judgment dtd. 25/2/2025.);

                   vi) Meena Devi Gupta vs. Union of India(First Appeal No.290/2021,).

10) He contended that the facts of this matter has to be looked into and in the present proceeding, there was no reason for deceased to go near Platform no.5 which is away from local platform nos. 1 to 4. He further submitted that the appellants were not able to produce the second class railway privilege free pass neither it was found with the body of the deceased. Therefore, according to him, on the first ground of ‘bonafide passenger’, the case of the appellants fails.

11) He submitted that there is a variance between the statement made by the friend of the deceased. At one time, he stated that he was on the Platform no.5 and he me the deceased on the platform no.5 and thereafter, he made statement that he met the deceased on the bridge. He further submitted that there is no untoward incident mentioned here. It is not fall within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ as defined u/s. 123-C of the Railways Act.

12) He submitted that hence the First Appeal needs to be dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal needs to be confirmed.

13) I have heard learned counsels for the parties and with their help I have gone through the documents on record.

14) Before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants, an affidavit dated 13/2/2019 of appellant no.1 was filed, wherein she specifically stated that the deceased was carrying second class Railway Privilege Free pass, and he had accidentally fallen down from the running train near Mumbai Central Railway Station. Due to head injury he died. So also, a friend of the deceased who was also working in Railways, has filed his affidavit in which he has stated that he had seen the deceased while boarding the train at Mumbai Central Railway Station and after some time he heard loud noise and as people shouted that somebody has fallen down from the train, he rushed to the spot to find that it was deceased who had fallen down.

15) The railways have examined their officer Mr. Piyush Modi, who in his evidence stated that he had filed an affidavit for the limited purpose to show that there is a distance between Platform No.4 and 5 of around 300-500 mt. In his cross-examination he stated that he is not aware anything about the incident.

16) Similarly, the punch witnesses stated that one unknown person cut in two pieces found near Platform No.5. The accident memo dated 16/10/2009 itself states ‘found lying died into two pieces which is signed by the Station Master.

17) It is necessary to examine the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi((2019) 3 SCC572). In paragraph 25, it was held that death of the victim during boarding or deboarding the train both would be considered as an “untoward incident”. Similarly, in paragraph 29 it was held that the victim’s legal heirs can discharge the burden of bonafide passenger by filing their requisite affidavit where they will give details of the fact that the victim had purchased railway ticket and hence, he was the bonafide passenger at the time of the accident had occurred. It is held in paragraph 19 that while granting compensation, the higher of the two one being the date of the accident or the date of the award will be considered. Similarly, in paragraph 30, while considering the fact about granting of rate of interest, the Supreme Court considered the judgment of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 wherein the rate of interest of 6% was granted from the date of the application till the date of the award and further 9% thereafter awarded till the amount was paid. Paragraphs 19, 25, 29 and 30 read as under:-

                   19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon and Kalandi Charan Sahoo stands explained accordingly. The four- Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.

                   25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of "self-inflicted injury" would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence b of any particular degree, Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on "no fault theory". We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on "no fault theory" under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an "untoward incident" entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

                   29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.

                   30. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabils held that rate of interest has to be 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi, rate of interest has to be reasonable rate on a par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises up to the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is on a par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.

                   [Emphasis supplied]

                   17.1) Supreme Court in the judgment of Sanyoka Devi vs. Union of India(2023 (2) T.A.C. 16 (S.C.)) held that the Railway claim should be examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on parameters of beyond any reasonable doubt. Para no.20 reads as under :-

                   20. The Tribunal and the High Court have overlooked the fact that the appellant successfully discharged the initial onus on her by proving that the deceased had bought a valid railway ticket and boarded the train to reach the specified destination. It was a compensatory claim, originating out of a social welfare legislation, and such claim ought to have been examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the parameters of “beyond any reasonable doubt” as we often apply in a criminal trial.

                   [ Emphasis supplied ]

18) The Supreme Court in the case of Jameela & ors. vs. Union of India(AIR 2010 SC 3705) while considering the fact that the deceased was standing at the open door of running train compartment when he fell down, the Court held that it may be an act of negligence of deceased, however, the railway would be liable to pay compensation. In paragraph 9, it held that, negligence is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124-A. Criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Therefore, standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. Paragraph 9 reads as under:-

                   9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fall even after assuming everything in its favour.

                   (Emphasis supplied)

19) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors.(2008 ACJ 1895) held that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In either case it amounts to an “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. Therefore, it is within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ as per Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.

                   19.1) Further it was held that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, the beneficial and welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. The expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” including accidents when a bonafide passenger is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. Paragraphs 10, 12, 14 and 17 read as under:-

                   10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. Hence, it is an ‘untoward incident’ as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act.

                   12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, the beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation.

                   14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.

                   17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of rail-way accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.

                   (Emphasis supplied)

20) The ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the judgments discussed above are squarely applicable to the present proceeding.

                   20.1) As far as authorities relied upon by counsel on behalf of Railways are concerned:

                   (i) In Malati Panchal (supra), Single Judge of this Court held that incident occurred in May 2012, and in Station Master’s report, there is no mention about Mr.Gawade friend of the deceased informing the Station Master, and further he accompanying the police at site of the incident. The affidavit of Mr.Gawade has been filed in the proceedings after 5 years. His presence is not shown in any document that he was travelling with the deceased. Even in Inquest Report, his name is not shown as present on site. Therefore on the basis of the documents and evidence on record, it was held that the deceased was not travelling with a valid ticket, hence claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, the facts were quite different than the present proceedings.

                   (ii) In Mulji Bharumal Sundra (supra) Single Judge of this Court was considering whether deceased was a bonafide passenger. Upon considering the judgment of Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India reported in(2019)12 SCC 391 decided by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The facts of that case were materially different than the present proceedings. Hence, the ratio laid down therein will not be applicable to the present proceedings.

                   (iii) In Ramdas Omkar Sonawane (supra) this Court held that in the cross-examination, the claimant admitted that the deceased was crossing railway track when the accident occurred. Therefore, the death of the deceased would not fall within the ambit of “untoward incident”. Therefore, all the facts in this judgment are vastly different than that of the present proceedings.

                   (iv) In Ganesh s/o. Waman Waghmare (supra), the learned Single Judge was considering the issue that no journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased and of evidence, there was nothing to suggest that any ticket was ever purchased by the deceased. Hence, the claim petition was rejected. Again, in the said judgment, the facts are entirely different than the present proceedings. Therefore, the ratio laid down will not be applicable to the present proceedings.

                   (v) In Smt. Sangeeta Dinesh Dhokle (supra), a Single Judge held that as per the statement given by the brother and wife of the deceased in comparison to the statement given by the friend of the deceased, there was a testamentary appears to be concocted. Hence, it was discarded.

                   (vi) In Meena Devi Gupta (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the claimant failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Based on a close assessment of the nature injury showing that the injuries were not as a result of accidental fall and they were more inductive of he being knocked down by a train.

21) Considering the evidence on record of the present proceedings, I hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death had occurred as a result of an untoward incident. I am satisfied that the impugned order of the Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence, Point Nos. (a), (b) and (c) are answered in affirmative in favour of appellant.

22) The date of accident is 16/10/2009. The dependents of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal on 4/6/2012. The Railway Accidental Compensation Rules, 1990 were amended from 1/1/2017, whereby for death, the amount of compensation was increased from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. The impugned order was passed by the Railways Tribunal on 1/3/2021.

                   22.1) Considering the date of claim application, i.e. 4/6/2012, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- can be granted. The interest from the date of accident till today on Rs.4,00,000/- @ 9%, would be Rs.5,94,000/-. The total amount payable as of today would be Rs.9,94,000/-. If calculated as per amended Rules would be Rs.8,00,000/-. As per the ratio of the judgment of Rina Devi (supra), the higher of the two amounts is Rs.9,94,000/-.

23) Accordingly, I pass following order :-

                   (i) The First Appeal stands allowed and impugned order passed by the Railway Tribunal on 5/3/2021, in OA (II u)/MCC/1223/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the issues with respect to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the death of the deceased was occurred as an result of an untoward incident. The findings recorded with respect to the appellants being the dependents of the deceased which has been answered in favour of the appellants, is hereby confirmed.

                   (ii) The Appellants are entitled to receive from the Respondent – Railway, a sum of Rs.9,94,000/- as on today. As the appellants being dependents are three in number being the wife and two daughters of the deceased, the said amount be equally distributed between them.

                   (iii) The said amount of Rs.9,94,000/- be deposited by the Railway in the bank account of the appellants within eight weeks from the date when the appellants furnish the bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Western Railway.. In case of default, this amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

                   (iv) No costs.

24) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.