Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.657/2023

1. SAKHARAM MANIK SHINGARE

2. MANDAKINI SAKHARAM SHINGARE ..APPELLANTS

VS

THE UNION OF INDIA REP.BY

THE GENERAL MANAGER,

CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI ..RESPONDENT

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

Adv. G. J. Mohan Rao for appellants.

Adv. Niranjan P. Shimpi for respondent – railways.

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

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

RESERVED ON : 6 MAY 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 15 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 7/4/2022,

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

short ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the Claim Application No.OA (II

u)/MCC/0538/2013.

2) The appellants filed Claim Application before the Tribunal

for granting compensation on account of death caused to Vipul

Sakharam Shingare, who died in the railway untoward incident on

1 2026:BHC-AS:23866

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

22/9/2012. It was the case of the appellants that on 22/9/2012,

Vipul Sakharam Shingare while travelling in the local train from

Ambernath to Ghatkopar Railway Station, accidentally fell down

from the running train near Ambernath Railway Station below

Platform No.3 at Km No.59/35-36, sustained grievous head injury

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

as a bonafide passenger, on the strength of a second class railway

season ticket, but same was lost in the incident. It was submitted that

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

incident” and the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

3) The railway contested the Claim Application by filing

written statement, and they raised an objection that there was no

untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the

Railway Act. It is further stated that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger as ticket was not recovered from his body. Hence, the

claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

4) On behalf of the appellants, appellant no.2 entered the

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

respondent – railway. There is no evidence led, on behalf of the

respondent.

2

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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

order dated 7/4/2022, dismissed Claim Application No.OA (II

u)/MCC/0538/2013, 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

7/4/2022, passed by the Tribunal, the original claimants have filed

the present appeal.

7) The following points arise for determination which are as

follows:-

(a)Whether the appellants prove that the deceased was a

bonafide passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant

day ?

(b)Whether the appellants prove that the death of the

deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident as

alleged in the claim application ?

(c)Whether the appellants prove that they are the

dependents of the deceased within the meaning of Sec. 123(b)

of the Railways Act ?

(d)To what order/relief ?

3

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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

help I have gone through the documents on record.

POINT – (a):- Bonafide Passenger:-

9) In the present proceeding, as per the inquest panchanama

dated 22/9/2022, there was no valid ticket or pass recovered from

the possession of the deceased. However, the appellant no. 2 has duly

filed an affidavit stating, that her son (now deceased) was holding a

valid second class railway ticket and while travelling from Ambernath

to Ghatkopar, he accidentally fell down from the train, sustained

grievous head injury 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

4

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

caused by the said untoward incident.

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

5

Diksha Rane FA 657 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)

6

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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

Promothonath Sen and another vs. Talle Shubham Ashokrao and

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.

22025 SCC OnLine Bom 280

7

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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 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. 2 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 totally perverse in view of the ratio of Rina Devi’s judgment,

on the same issue.

15) Hence, point – (a) is answered in affirmative in favour of

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

8

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

passenger.

UNTOWARD INCIDENT :

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

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, in the inquest panchanama dated

22/9/2012, records the injuries sustained by the deceased as head

broken and skull crushed, right elbow fracture, right leg ankle

fracture, thumb broken, left leg thigh fracture and major injury below

knee.

17.1) It is further records that the deceased while crossing the

railway line near Ambernath railway station, was knocked down by

an unknown train and sustained grievous injury on the head resulting

in death on the spot. 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.

9

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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

is contended that the deceased was found lying on the railway tracks

and GRP has not recovered any valid railway pass or ticket from the

deceased. On that basis, the railway have alleged that the incident

was a case of knock down while trespassing upon the railway tracks

and the deceased, by his own negligence and criminal act, invited the

disaster himself.

17.3) The respondent – railways in their written statement

stated that the deceased was knocked down by a local train and said

incident occurred due to the negligence and criminal act of the

deceased. However, the memo mentions “trespassing and hit by

unknown train” as reason for the incident.

17.4) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants that mere nature of injuries cannot by itself lead to any

interference of trespass or self-inflicted injuries. The observations

recorded in the Inquest panchnama and police report only indicate

the condition in which the deceased was found. Such observations

cannot substitute proof of the manner in which the incident actually

occurred.

10

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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.

19) In the present case, it is nowhere recorded 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.

11

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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 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)

3AIR 2010 SC 3705

12

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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.

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

42008 ACJ 1895

13

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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)

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

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

14

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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 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

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

15

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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 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

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

16

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

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.

27) The Point for determination (b) is answered in affirmative

in favour of the appellants.

POINT – (c) – Dependents:-

28) The appellant No.1 in its claim application has mentioned

that the deceased was his son and the appellant No.2 is the mother of

the deceased. The appellants have also filed a copy of ration card,

election card, bank passbooks along with the death certificate of the

deceased to prove their relationship with the deceased. There is no

evidence to the contrary led by the Railways.

17

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

28.1) Thus it is held that the Appellants, being the father and

mother of the deceased, under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act,

1989, are the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the Point for

determination (d) is answered in Affirmative in favour of the

appellants.

29) Considering the date of the accident i.e. 22/9/2012, 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/-.

30) 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.

18

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

31) Taking into account the date of the Award i.e. 7/4/2022,

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 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 22/9/2012 and the amount as compensation

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

the Tribunal on 7/4/2022. 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.4,98,000/-. The total amount as

of today would be Rs.8,98,000/-. As per the ratio of the Judgment of

Rina Devi (supra), the higher of the two amounts is Rs.8,98,000/-.

ORDER

A) The first appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment

and order dated 7/4/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

B) The claim of the appellants stands allowed to

Rs.8,98,000/-. As the appellants are two, being father and mother of

the deceased, being the dependents, the said amount be equally

19

Diksha Rane FA 657 2023.doc

distributed between them.

C)The said amount of Rs.8,98,000/- 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.

32) The first appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

33) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

Judgment.

(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)

20