Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 16th October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Bhaskar Kandh Panda and Prafulla @ Pranita Bhaskar Panda (parents of the deceased); Respondent – Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai.
  • Nature of Proceeding: First Appeal (No. 838 of 2022) against the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, 2nd Bench judgment dated 5 March 2020 dismissing Claim Application No. OA (II u)/MCC/0957/2015.
  • Background: On 1 September 2015, the deceased, Sandeep P. Panda, fell from a local train between Kurla and Chunabhatti stations and later died of skull injuries at Sion Hospital. A one‑way ticket (No.AB‑08429563) for the Kurla‑to‑Belapur leg was recovered from his wallet; the ticket for the Belapur‑to‑CSMT leg was not found.
  • Claims Presented: The appellants submitted a station master memo, police report, inquest panchanama, death certificate, and an affidavit (dated 19 December 2019) stating the deceased earned Rs 3,000 per month and had purchased both tickets. The Railways submitted a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report.
  • Legal Issues Raised:

1. Whether the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger despite the missing return ticket.

2. Whether the death resulted from an untoward incident or the deceased’s own negligence.

3. Applicability of Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 (exception clause).

4. Determination of compensation amount under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended in 2016.

  • Observations & Reasoning:
  • The Tribunal erred by concluding the deceased was not a bona‑fide passenger solely because the return ticket was absent, despite accepting the police report, inquest panchanama, and DRM report that the death was an untoward incident.
  • The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) which holds that absence of a ticket does not negate passenger status if an affidavit discharges the initial burden and the burden then shifts to the Railways.
  • The Court noted non‑compliance with Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003, as no Jamatalashi report was prepared, and the DRM report was filed after a four‑year delay.
  • The Court found no evidence that the deceased’s negligence caused the fall; the DRM report’s claim that he was standing at a prohibited door was unsubstantiated.
  • Section 124(A) exceptions were not established by the Railways.
  • Applying the amended 2016 Rules, the compensation for death is Rs 8,00,000. Interest at 9 % per annum from the accident date is applicable, yielding a total of Rs 8,00,438.36 (interest on the earlier Rs 4,00,000 amount as calculated by the Court).

Final Outcome

  • The First Appeal is allowed; the Tribunal’s order dated 5 March 2020 is quashed.
  • The appellants are awarded Rs 8,00,438.36, to be equally divided between the father and mother.
  • Central Railway must deposit the amount in the appellants’ bank accounts within eight weeks of receipt of their bank details; failure to do so will attract further interest at 9 % per annum until payment.
  • All interim applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Railway Compensation, Legal Burden of Proof