Diksha Rane 1/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 66/2023

1. RANJANA KISHOR TANDEL

2. PREETI DEVENDRA BHOIR ..APPELLANTS

VS

UNION OF INDIA, THR. THE GENERAL

MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY ..RESPONDENT

------------

Adv. Sainand Chaugule for appellants.

Adv. Leena Patil for respondent.

------------

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

RESERVED ON : 5 MAY, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 16 JUNE, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1) The present First Appeal has been filed by the Original

Claimants u/s. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987,

challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2020,

passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for

short “The Tribunal”), dismissing the Claim Application No.

OA (II u)/MCC/0471/2015.

2) The Appellants filed Claim Application before the

Tribunal for granting compensation on account of death of Mr. Kishor

Jayram Tandel, who died in the Railway untoward incident on

17.03.2015. It was the case of the Appellants that Mr. Kishor Jayram 2026:BHC-AS:24072

Diksha Rane 2/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

Tandel, was working at Navy Canteen, Colaba. On 17.03.2015, he was

on leave. At afternoon, the deceased left home to Dadar to meet his

friend. While travelling in the local train from Churchgate Railway

Station to Dadar Railway Station, he accidentally due to heavy rush

and push by other passengers in the compartment fell down from the

running train between Lower Parel Railway Station and Elphiston

Railway Station at Km No.7/9-10, and sustained grievous injuries due

to which he died. It was submitted that the deceased was travelling as

a bonafide passenger, on the strength of a Second Class Railway ticket

but the same was lost in the incident. It was further submitted

that the alleged incident is covered under the ambit of an “untoward

incident” and the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

3) The Respondent-Railway contested the Claim Application

by filing their written statement and they raised an objection that

there was no untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)

(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

4) On behalf of the Appellants, the Appellant No. 1 entered

the witness box. She was cross-examined by learned Counsel for the

Respondent – Railway. The Respondent – Railway did not examine any

witness.

Diksha Rane 3/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

5) The Tribunal after hearing the parties by it’s Judgment

and Order dated 09.01.2020 dismissed the Claim Application No.

OA (II u)/MCC/0471/2015, on the grounds that the deceased was not

a “bonafide passenger” and that the incident does not fall within the

meaning of ‘untoward incident’ as defined u/S. 123(c)(2) of the

Railways Act, 1989.

6) Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated

09.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal, the Original Claimants have filed

the present Appeal.

7) The following points arise for determination which are as

under:-

(a)Whether interference is required in the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2020 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 dependent of the deceased ? And interest (if any)

payable.

8) I have heard learned Counsel of both sides and with their

help I have gone through the documents on record.

Diksha Rane 4/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

POINT – (b):- Bonafide Passenger :-

9) In the present proceeding, as per the Panchnama dated

17.03.2015, there was no valid ticket or pass recovered from the

possession of the deceased. However, the Appellant No.1 has duly

filed an affidavit stating, that her husband (now deceased) was

holding a valid Second Class Railway ticket and while travelling from

Churchgate to Dadar, her husband accidentally due to over-

crowdedness fell down from the train, sustained grievous injuries and

died.

10) Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads as under :-

“124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. When in

the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then

whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default

on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a

passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger

who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in

respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding

anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation

to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss

occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of

such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section

by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury

due to-

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act ;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or

insanity,(e) any natural cause or disease of medical or

surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes

necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward

incident.

Diksha Rane 5/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "passenger"

includes

(i) a railway servant on duty, and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling,

by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid

platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward

incident.”

11) Section 2(29) defines “passengers” as follows :-

Section 2(29) “passenger” means a person travelling with a valid

pass or ticket.”

12) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina

Devi

1

held in paragraph 29, it was held that mere absence of ticket

would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger, 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. 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

1(2019) 3 SCC572

Diksha Rane 6/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

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 c 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)

13) The Single Judge of this Court in the Judgment of Pinto

Promothonath Sen and another vs. Talle Shubham Ashokrao and

Diksha Rane 7/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

another

2

while dealing with similar facts wherein the body of the

deceased was cut into two pieces has held that the deceased was a

bonafide passenger as initial burden of proof of the Applicant was to

assert that the deceased was having a valid ticket and once such

Affidavit was filed the burden stands discharged and onus shifts on the

Railways and as the Claimants’ evidence went un-controverted, the

death was held to be caused in an untoward incident. It was also

observed that considering the Judgment of Supreme Court in Rina

Devi (supra) wherein the Supreme Court after considering various

decisions on the subject has held that the concept of self inflicted

injury would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere

negligence of any particular degree. Paragraphs 15, 19 and 20 read as

under:-

“15. In the cross-examination, there is not even a suggestion given by

the Railways that the deceased did not have a valid railway ticket and

was therefore not a bonafide passenger. The initial burden of the

Applicant was to assert that the deceased was having valid ticket and

once such assertion finds place in the affidavit the initial burden

stands discharged and the onus then shifts on the railways. The

evidence of the Applicant No. 1 has gone un-contraverted as regards

the deposition of the purchase of the railway ticket by the deceased

and the deceased must be held to be a bonafide passenger. Point no. 1

is accordingly answered in favour of the Applicants.

19. In the present case, the station master's memo does not record

any information being given by any motorman of having knocked

down any person which was the bounden duty of the railway servant

as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003. The information given to the

police infact records that on 5th October, 2013 written memo was

22025 SCC OnLine Bom 280

Diksha Rane 8/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

given that the deceased was lying between Vitthalwadi and Ulhas

Nagar railway station near railway K.M. 56/36 in two pieces of body.

It is therefore clear that the deceased was found lying near the

railway track and no information was given by any motorman that

the train had knocked down some person who was crossing the

railway track. There is no evidence led by Railways of any guard or

motormen to establish that the deceased was knocked down while

crossing the tracks.

20. It is the case of the Railways that it is self inflicted injury and has

occurred due to carelessness and negligence of the Applicant. In the

case of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) the Apex Court examined

the concept of self inflicted injury and after considering the various

decisions on the subject held that the concept of self inflicted injury

would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence

of any particular degree. It further approved the view taken in the

case of United India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar that the

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.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

14) In the present case, the averments made in the Affidavit

of the Appellant No.1 are in consonance with the ratio laid down by

the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 29 of Rina Devi’s (supra)

Judgment. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal,

according to me, are perverse in view of the ratio laid down by

Supreme Court in the judgment of Rina Devi on the same issue.

15) Hence, point – (b) is answered in Affirmative in favour of

the Appellants and it is held that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger.

Point – (c) UNTOWARD INCIDENT :-

16) Section 123(c)(2) of The Railways Act, 1989 defines the

Diksha Rane 9/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

term “untoward incident”. Sec. 123(3)(c) reads as under:-

123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context

otherwise requires,—

(a)….

(b)….

(c)“untoward incident” means—

(1) ….

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger

from a train carrying passengers.

17) In the present proceeding, the Panchnama dated

17.03.2015, records the injuries sustained by the deceased as -

(a) head – wounded on the back side, skull broken and

brain smashed;

(b) Four injuries of 2’’ on forehead;

(c) 1’’ injury on nose;

(d) 2’’ injury on elbow of right hand;

(e) 5’’ injury seen on the arm and amputated from inside;

(f) left hand amputated from inside near arm;

(g) Right leg amputated from inside near the knee and

large injury of 15-20’’ ;

(h) Left leg amputated from inside near the thigh;

(i) Abrasions on body due to railway stones.

17.1) It further records that the deceased fell down from an

unknown local train between Lower Parel and Elphiston Railway

Diksha Rane 10/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

Station, near Km. 07/09-10 and sustained injuries and profusely

bleeding, resulting in death. However, there is admittedly no

eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, the case necessarily has to be

adjudicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the documents

on record.

17.2) Further, in the written statement filed by the Railways, it

is contended that the deceased by his own negligence and

carelessness, invited the disaster himself and no journey ticket was

recovered from the body. On that basis, the Railways have alleged that

the incident cannot be termed as an untoward incident and hence,

Appellant is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 124A of

the Railways Act.

17.3) The DRM Report stated that the deceased due to its own

criminal act and negligence suffered this accident. So also, the injury

inflicted by the deceased are self-inflicted injury and the railways is

not responsible for his own negligence and carelessness.

17.4) The Appellant No.1 (AW-1) has specifically deposed that

she along with the brother and nephew of the deceased lodged

missing complaint at Cuffe Parade Police Station on 18.03.2015.

Diksha Rane 11/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

17.5) It is submitted that mere nature of injuries cannot by

itself lead to any interference of trespass or self-inflicted injuries. The

observations recorded in the Panchnama and Memo only indicate the

condition in which the deceased was found. Such observations cannot

substitute proof of the manner in which the incident actually

occurred.

17.6) According to respondent, it is a case of suicide, and

injuries inflicted by the deceased are self-inflicted and due to the

negligence and carelessness of the deceased.

17.7) Considering the fact that, the deceased being employed

at the Navy Canteen, Colaba and even residing at Colaba. In such

circumstances, the theory advanced by the Railways that the deceased

travelled up to the Lower Parel - Elphiston section solely to commit

suicide appears difficult to accept and does not inspire confidence. It

appears highly unlikely that a person residing at Colaba, for whom

Churchgate being the nearest railway station and who was not a

frequent traveller, would travel all the way to Lower Parel merely with

the intention of ending his life.

17.8) The findings recorded in the impugned judgment,

wherein the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not travelling

Diksha Rane 12/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

as a bonafide passenger and was allegedly knocked down by an

unknown train, resulting in fatal injuries and subsequent death. The

Tribunal held that the deceased was a trespasser and that the incident

occurred between Lower Parel Railway Station and Elphiston Railway

Station while he was allegedly crossing/trespassing upon the railway

tracks.

17.9) On the contrary, the explanation already placed on record

by the widow of the deceased, that the deceased had travelled from

Churchgate towards Dadar Station to meet his friends, appears to be

factually correct and in consonance with the surrounding

circumstances. Therefore, the version put forth by the Railways does

not merit acceptance.

18) As per the prescribed procedure, information regarding

the accident is first to be reported to the Station Master and the

Station Master’s memo must record that the deceased was hit by an

unknown train while trespassing. The Railway Passengers (Manner of

Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 provides that any

railway servant, including guard and driver of the train, upon

becoming aware of the occurrence of an untoward incident shall

report the same to the nearest station Superintendent.

Diksha Rane 13/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

19) In the present case, the Station Master’s memo does not

record receipt of any information from the motorman regarding any

person having been knocked down by a train, despite such reporting

being the bounden duty of a Railway servant under Rule 3 of the

Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents)

Rules, 2003. This circumstance indicates that the deceased was merely

found lying near the Railway track and there was no report to that

effect by any motorman stating that a train had struck a person while

crossing the Railway track. Furthermore, no evidence has been led by

the Railways through examination of any guard, motorman or other

Railway personnel to establish that the deceased was knocked down

while crossing the tracks.

20) The Supreme Court in the case of Jameela & ors. vs.

Union of India

3

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

3AIR 2010 SC 3705

Diksha Rane 14/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

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)

21) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors.

4

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.

42008 ACJ 1895

Diksha Rane 15/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

22) 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

Diksha Rane 16/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

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)

23) The Single Judge of this Court in the Judgment of Mr.

Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan Vs. Union of India

5

while considering facts

where the body was cut into two pieces, has held that in absence of

expert evidence, the tribunal should not have rendered its personal

opinion while adjudicating the claim. The contentions of the Railways

could not have been accepted. The tribunal based on the injury held

that such grievous injury could not be sustained after having fallen

down from the train, whereas it needs to be noted that injuries have

to be considered in overall circumstances. Paragraph 16 of the

Judgment reads as under :-

“16.In paragraph 13 of the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal

observed and I quote;

“It is also worth mentioning that when a person falls down from the

running train, his/her body will fall away, where as in this case the

deceased body – had been cut into two pieces and was laying in the

5First Appeal No.658/2018 decided on 15/3/2021.

Diksha Rane 17/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

tracks. This circumstantial evidence indicates that deceased was

crossing the railway track and was not run over by a local train”.

There was no evidence of an expert before the Tribunal to opine

as to under what circumstances a person’s body would cut into two

pieces and when it would not. The Tribunal should not have rendered

it’s personal opinion while adjudicating the claim under the present

Statute. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a

beneficial piece of Legislation, it should receive liberal and wider

interpretation and not narrow and technical one. It should advance

the object of the Statute.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

24) The Single Judge of this Court in the Judgment of Vidya

wd/o Dyaneshwar Wankhede and others vs. Union of India

6

has held

that the observation of the tribunal that the death of the deceased is

not possible by falling from the train merely because he was cut into

pieces, is completely unjustified and misconceived conclusion. The

Court further observed that it is not uncommon for a passenger’s body

to be badly cut or crushed if they fall and become entangled in the

train’s wheels. Paragraph 16 of the Judgment reads as under:-

“16. In the present case, there was no eyewitness to the incident in

question. The deceased was resident of Dhamangaon, district

Amravati. The Railway Ticket found with deceased shows that he had

obtained a Railway Ticket to proceed to Ijapur, district Wardha. The

Railway Administration has not adduced any evidence to show that the

deceased has attempted to commit suicide. On the contrary, the

admission given by the witness examined by the Railway

Administration shows that he had not received any information about

suicide or dash by any train to any person. Thus, the Railway

Administration has not adduced any evidence to show that the

deceased, while crossing the railway track, was dashed by the train

and he sustained injuries and his body was cut into two pieces. The

Railway Administration has also not adduced any evidence to show

that the deceased has attempted to commit suicide. Therefore, the

conclusion of learned Member of the Tribunal that the nature of

6First Appeal No.1710/2019 decided on 24/2/2023.

Diksha Rane 18/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

injuries shows that it is the case of the deceased coming under the

wheels of the train is once again misconceived conclusion because

types of injuries along with other facts pertain to decide whether the

accident is of a fall from the train or injuries were on account of a

person being run over by the train. It is not unknown that a body may

badly cut up and crush up after falling from the train either on account

of bonafide passenger getting entangled in the place of the train and

thereafter in the wheels or the other equipment of the train in which

he was travelling or that the deceased on account of fall from the train

dashed by the various equipment of the railways which are joined to

the tracks, such as polls, singles, wires etc. Therefore, in the facts of

the present case, the observation of the tribunal that the death of the

deceased is not possible by felling from the train merely because he

was cut into pieces, is completely unjustified.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

25) The Single Judge of this Court in the Judgment of Motilila

wd/o. Pruthviraj Gajbhiye and others vs. Union of India

7

while dealing

with the fact that the deceased went to Railway station with a valid

platform ticket to receive his son but was struck by another train and

died on the spot, has held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger

and his death constituted an untoward incident.

26) Considering the evidence led in the present proceeding

and law as laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court in

various Judgments discussed above, the ratio laid in the said

Judgments are squarely applicable to the present proceedings. Hence,

this First Appeal deserves to be allowed. Interference is required in the

impugned Judgment and Order.

72023 2023 (3) Mh.L.J. 537

Diksha Rane 19/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

27) The Point for determination (c) is answered in Affirmative

in favour of the Appellants.

28) Considering the date of the accident i.e. 17.03.2015, the

provisions of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents

(Compensation) Rules, 1990, as they stood prior to 01.01.2017, would

be applicable, and the compensation payable for death would be

Rs.4,00,000/-.

29) The Supreme Court in the Judgment of Rina Devi (supra)

in paragraph No. 30 has held that, interest will be payable from the

date of the accident. Having regard to the legal position, which is held

to be on par with claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interest

@ 9% p.a. (i.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. or Rs.3,000/- per month) appears to

be just and reasonable. It is well settled that Section 124A of the

Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Rules of 1990 are

framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Railways Act, 1989.

30) Taking into account the date of the Award i.e.

09.01.2020, which is subsequent to the amendment to the said Rules

of 1990 in the year 2016 (whereby the compensation payable for

death has been revised to Rs.8,00,000/-), paragraph 18 of Rina Devi

(supra) would apply. Accordingly, a comparison between the two

Diksha Rane 20/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

amounts is required to be made, and the higher of the two amounts is

liable to be awarded, this being under a beneficial piece of legislation.

The date of the incident is 17.03.2015 and the amount as

compensation as claimed on that date was Rs.4,00,000/-. The Award

was passed by the Tribunal on 09.01.2020. By that time, the

compensation payable pursuant to the amended Rules was enhanced

to Rs.8,00,000/-. However, considering the interest from the date of

accident till today on Rs.4,00,000/- @ 9% would be Rs.4,05,000/-.

The total amount as of today would be Rs.8,05,000/-. As per the ratio

of the Judgment of Rina Devi (supra), the higher of the two amounts

is Rs.8,05,000/-.

O R D E R

(A)The First Appeal stands allowed and the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2020 is hereby quashed and

set aside to the extent of findings decided on Issue Nos. (i),(ii)

and (iii). The findings recorded on Issue No. (iv) is hereby

confirmed.

(B)The claim of the Appellants stands allowed to

Rs.8,05,000/-. As the Appellants are two, being wife and

daughter of the deceased, being the dependents, the said

amount be equally distributed between them;

Diksha Rane 21/21 FA 66 OF 2023.doc

(C)The said amount of Rs.8,05,000/- be deposited by the

Railways in bank account of Appellants within a period of eight

weeks from the date when the Appellants furnish the bank

details to the Chief Claim Officer, Central Railway;

(D)If the said amount is not deposited in their Bank accounts

within a stipulated period, it will carry further interest @ 9% p.a.

till time of the payment.

31) The First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

32) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

Order.

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)