Bombay High Court Allows Compensation to Family of Deceased Passenger in Railway Accident Case. Death of a bonafide passenger due to being knocked down by a train while crossing tracks between stations constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the absence of a ticket on the body does not negate bonafide passenger status.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal filed by the original applicants (the family of the deceased) against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, which rejected their claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The deceased, Vinod Vachhani, was a self-employed businessman who boarded a train from Ulhasnagar Station to Dadar Station on 10th November 2009. According to the Station Master's Report, a message was received at 07:50 hours that a male passenger had been hit by an unknown train between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station. The Railway Authorities reached the spot and found the dead body. On search, a purse containing a driving license, PAN card, mobile phone, watch, ring, and cash were found, but no railway ticket was recovered. An inquest panchnama stated that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train, and the post-mortem report indicated the cause of death as 'shock due to head injury'. The applicants filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal. The Railways filed a written statement and an investigation report. After evidence, the Tribunal rejected the application on 31st March 2016, holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since no ticket was found, and that the accident did not fall within the definition of 'untoward incident' as the deceased was crossing the track. The High Court framed the issues of whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the accident was an untoward incident. The appellants argued that the deceased had boarded the train and was a bonafide passenger, and the absence of a ticket was not conclusive. The respondent Railways argued that the deceased was crossing the track and was not a passenger. The court analyzed the evidence, including the Station Master's Report and the inquest panchnama, which indicated that the deceased was a passenger. The court held that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railways, and they failed to discharge it. The court further held that the accident was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, as it involved a passenger being knocked down by a train. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railways to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application.

Headnote

A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c) and 124A - Death of passenger while crossing tracks between stations - Held that the accident is an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railways is liable to pay compensation under Section 124A. The court held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger as he had boarded the train from Ulhasnagar to Dadar, and the absence of a ticket on his body does not disprove his bonafide status. (Paras 1-11)

B) Railways Act - Bonafide Passenger - Burden of Proof - Section 124A - Absence of ticket on body - Held that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railways. The court held that the mere fact that a ticket was not found on the deceased's body does not lead to the conclusion that he was not a bonafide passenger, especially when other belongings like driving license, PAN card, etc., were found. (Paras 7-10)

C) Railways Act - Compensation - Strict Liability - Section 124A - Death due to accident - Held that the Railways is strictly liable to pay compensation for death or injury caused by an untoward incident, and the defence of negligence or contributory negligence is not available. The court allowed the appeal and directed payment of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application. (Paras 11-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the accident falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, 1989.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 31st March 2016 is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. The amount be paid within eight weeks.

Law Points

  • Bonafide passenger
  • Untoward incident
  • Burden of proof
  • Strict liability
  • Compensation under Railways Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:21497

First Appeal No. 1447 of 2016

2026-05-06

Jitendra Jain, J.

2026:BHC-AS:21497

Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellants, Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Gautam Modanwal & Mr. Prasad Sawant for the Respondent

Heena Vinod Vachhani, Bhavika Vinod Vachhani, Harsha Vinod Vachhani, Kamala Shyamsundar Vachhani

The Union Of India, Represented By The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai, CST

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against rejection of compensation claim under Railways Act, 1989 for death in railway accident.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought compensation for the death of Vinod Vachhani due to an accident on railway premises.

Filing Reason

The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the accident was not an untoward incident.

Previous Decisions

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai rejected the application on 31st March 2016.

Issues

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? Whether the accident falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, 1989?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the deceased had boarded the train from Ulhasnagar to Dadar and was a bonafide passenger; absence of ticket is not conclusive. Respondent argued that the deceased was crossing the track and was not a passenger; no ticket found on his body.

Ratio Decidendi

The burden to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railways. The absence of a ticket on the body does not disprove bonafide passenger status. The accident of a passenger being knocked down by a train while crossing tracks between stations is an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railways is strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 124A.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal opined that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, since the ticket was not found at the time of the accident and further the accident does not fall within the meaning of 'untoward incident' as defined by the Railways Act, 1989, since the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station. The burden to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railways. The mere fact that a ticket was not found on the deceased's body does not lead to the conclusion that he was not a bonafide passenger. The accident is an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railways is liable to pay compensation under Section 124A.

Procedural History

The deceased died on 10th November 2009. The applicants filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal rejected the application on 31st March 2016. The applicants filed the present appeal before the High Court on 10th February 2026. The appeal was admitted on 10th February 2026 and heard on 6th May 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Railways Act, 1989: 123(c), 124A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Compensation to Family of Deceased Passenger in Railway Accident Case. Death of a bonafide passenger due to being knocked down by a train while crossing tracks between stations constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging E-Auction Result for Gold Mining Licence Due to Lack of Evidence of Technical Glitch. Petitioner failed to prove portal malfunction prevented bid submission; declaration of preferred bidder upheld.