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

Order Date: 24 September 2026 (judgment pronounced)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Waman Maruti Suryawanshi and Mrs. Prabhavati Waman Suryawanshi (father and mother of the deceased); Respondent – Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway.
  • Nature of Proceeding: First Appeal (No. 9 of 2022) against the judgment and decree dated 20 September 2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed the claim for compensation on the death of Rahul Waman Suryawanshi.
  • Background Facts:
  • Rahul Waman Suryawanshi, aged 26, was employed with Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation in 2015 and was the sole bread‑winner of the family.
  • On 22 March 2015 he purchased a valid railway ticket from Ghansoli to Airoli, boarded a local train, and allegedly fell from the moving train between Ghansoli and Rabale stations, sustaining serious injuries and dying before hospital admission.
  • The inquest panchanama recorded the presence of the ticket and stated that the deceased fell from an “unknown local train.”
  • The Railways, via a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report dated 8 June 2015, claimed the deceased was trespassing the track and was hit by an unknown train, contending that the incident was not an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
  • The Tribunal framed five issues, ultimately dismissing the claim on the basis that the deceased was not proven to have fallen from the train.
  • Legal Contentions:
  • Appellants argued that the Tribunal ignored the inquest panchanama, failed to consider the ticket, and erred in concluding the deceased was a trespasser.
  • They relied on precedents (Sadashiv Rannappa Kotiyan vs UOI, Mrs. Seema Pathare vs UOI, Union of India vs Rina Devi) to assert that a bona‑fide passenger who falls from a moving train is entitled to compensation unless an exception under Section 124A applies.
  • Respondent‑Railways contended that the DRM report and Station Master memo were conclusive evidence of trespassing and that the appellant family had no personal knowledge of the accident.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed the First Appeal, quashed and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 September 2019.
  • It held that the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger (valid ticket proved) who fell from the moving train, constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
  • The applicable compensation under the amended Railway Accident Rules (2016) is Rs 8,00,000. Considering interest at 9% per annum from the accident date (22 March 2015) on the earlier amount of Rs 4,00,000, the total payable is Rs 8,14,641.
  • The amount is to be equally divided between the father and mother (appellants) and deposited by Central Railway in their bank accounts within eight weeks of furnishing bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Central Railway.
  • If payment is delayed beyond the stipulated period, further interest at 9% per annum will accrue until full payment.
  • All interim applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Railway Accident Compensation, Legal Appeal, Section 124A Railways Act