IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 17642 OF 2021

1)Shri. Ramdas Omkar Sonawane

Age 60 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,
2)Ishwar Ramdas Sonawane
Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
3)Ravi Ramdas Sonawane
Age 38 years, Occ. Service,
All R/o: Kausal Nagar, Behind Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corporation, Dhamma
Kranti Boudha Vihar, Opp. Water Tank,
Ulhasnagar Appellants 3, District: Thane … Applicants

V/s

Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Central Railway, CSMT Mumbai … Respondent

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Pages

No.

1 Copy of Synopsis

2 Copy of The Appeal Memo

3 Copy of the Judgement dated

passed by the Railway Claims tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai

4 Copy of the Claim Application No.

Before the railway claim tribunal at Mumbai
with Annexure

5 Copy of the Written Statement with DRM

 Report

6 Issues

7 Notes of Evidence

8 Docket

Last Page

1)Shri. Ramdas Omkar Sonawane

Age 60 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,
2)Ishwar Ramdas Sonawane
Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
3)Ravi Ramdas Sonawane
Age 38 years, Occ. Service,
All R/o: Kausal Nagar, Behind Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corporation, Dhamma
Kranti Boudha Vihar, Opp. Water Tank,
Ulhasnagar Appellants 3, District: Thane … Applicants

V/s

Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Central Railway, CSMT Mumbai … Respondent

(Value of Claim: Rs.8,00,000/- Both for

Jurisdiction and Valuation of Claim)
CHALLAGING IN BRIEF

The Appellants filed Claim Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal for granting
compensation on account of death cause to Dagubai Ramdas Sonawane, wife of Appellant No. 1
and mother of Appellant No. 2 & 3, who died in the railway untovward incident on 10/07/2013.
The Ld. Tribunal pleased to dismiss the claim appiication No. OA (II u) MCC/1134/2013
on10/07/2013 of' the appellants hence the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and
order passcd by the Ld. Tribunal by way of First Appeal before this Hon'ble High Court.

DATES OF EVENTS
 Sr. No. Date Event

1 10/07/2013 Railway untoward incident took Place.

2 07/08/2013 Application for granting compensation

filed by the Applicant before the Hon’ble
Railway Claim Tribunal.

3 31/01/2020 Application for Compensation dismissed.

POINT TO BE URGUED

A) The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have held that, the alleged incident comes
within the ambit of Sec. 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989.
B) That the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have held that Sec. 124-A of the Railway Act laid
down 'no fault liability'/ strict liability untoward incident' U/s. 123(c) and for an 124-A of
the Railway Act. Hence negligence is not ground to deny the compensation to the
dependents.
C) That the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have held that deceased was bonafide passenger on
the train at the time of accident.

ACTS AND CODES:

a) Indian Railway Act,1989,Act code 68

AUTHORITIES AND JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON:

At present nil.At the time of argument judgement will be cited with the permission
of this Hon’ble Court.

Date:
Place: Mumbai

Vasant N. More
(Advocate for Appellant)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 17642 OF 2021

1)Shri. Ramdas Omkar Sonawane

Age 60 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,
2)Ishwar Ramdas Sonawane
Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
3)Ravi Ramdas Sonawane
Age 38 years, Occ. Service,
All R/o: Kausal Nagar, Behind Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corporation, Dhamma
Kranti Boudha Vihar, Opp. Water Tank,
Ulhasnagar Appellants 3, District: Thane … Applicants

V/s

Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Central Railway, CSMT Mumbai … Respondent

(Value of Claim: Rs.8,00,000/- Both for

Jurisdiction and Valuation of Claim)

To The Hon'blc Chief Justice

& His Puisne Hon'ble Judges
of Bombay High Court.
THE APPELLANT MOST RESPDCTFULLY SHWETHE AS UNDER:
1) The Appellants are the Original Applicants who had filed an application for granting
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai on account of
death cause to Dagubai Ramdas Sonawane in an untoward incident on 10/07/2013.
2) The Appellahts case is that, Smt. Dagubai Ramdas Sonawane, aged about 45 years,
resident of Kausal Nagar, Ulhasnagar, District Thane, was a house wife and who on
10/07/2013, on the strength of valid second class railway return ticket, was travelling
as a bonafide passenger of local train from Ulhasnagar to Kalyan station and when the
 said train was running between Vithalwadi and Kalyan stations, she accidentally fell
down from the said train, came under it; her Dody got cut into two pieces from the
waist and she died on the spot, leaving behind her husband Ramdas Omkar Sonawane
(applicant No. 1) and sons Ishwar Ramdas ane (applicant No. 2) and Ravi Ramdas las
Sonawane (applicant No. 3), as So dependents. It is further stated that the railway
ticket on the strength of which the deceased travelled, got lost in the said had
incident.
3) The Respondent contested the claim application by filing the written statement along
with the DRM repot and denied all the averments made by the applicants in the claim
application. It is further stated that the applicants have failed to produce any material
evidence to prove that the deceased had accidentally fallen down from train carrying
passengers, that as per the DRM report, it is observed that the deceased was knocked
down by an unknown local train, while crossing the railway track, at Km. No. 54/39-
37; that the said incident occurred due the deceased's own criminal act, negligence
and carelessness and that she sustained self-inflicted injuries, for which the railway
administration is not responsible. As such the alleged incident, dated 10/07/2013,
cannot be termed as an untoward incident, as defined under Sec. 123(c)(2) of the
Railway Act, 1989. It is further stated that the GRP has not mentioned about recovery
of any railway travelling authority from the possession of the deceased; that it is for
the applicants to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger by producing the
original railway ticket; that the deceased being a trespasser was not a bonafide
passenger. As such the applicants cannot be compensated.
4) That, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Mumbai was pleased to dismiss the
abovesaid application for compensation on 31/01/2020.
5) The Appellant on being aggrieved by the order in respect of the original application
No. OA No. (II u)/MCC/1134/2013 had approached this Hon'ble court by way off
First Appeal U/s. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on the following
among other grounds;

GROUNDS OF APPEAL
a) The impugned order is illegal, bad in law.
b) The impugned order is against the equity, good conscience and natural justice.
c) That the impugned order is erroneous as well as very much hyper technical.
d) That the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal had erred in assuming that the deceased
either been knocked down or run over by some train in the absence of any admissible
evidence on record.
e) The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have noted that, the deceased was
injured at the time of accident he was rushed to the hospital without carrying out spot
panchnama. Therefore the Hon'ble Railway claims Tribunal ought to have accepted
that the deceased was bonafide passenger and ought to have not termed him ticketless
passenger in the absence of any controvertible material on record.
f) That the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have noted that the appellant had
produced original and valid ticlket of the deceased, if only the police personnel had
taken any effort to searched the ticket at the site of incident.
g) The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have noted that none stopped the
respondent to assert and prove their case. It is the duty of the respondent to prove the
nature of the accident and take that the deceased was not holding valid ticket. The
Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have noted that the facts especially are
within the knowledge of the railways.
h) The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal erred in holding that, Applicant No. 1 has
made contradictory statements in the claim application and his affidavit, hich make
his evidence doubtful on the point of journey ticket.
i) The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have held that, the Appellant made
statement on oath before the Court and ought to have held that there 1s no material
contradiction come on record on the point of journey ticket.
j) That, the passenger has to be presumed bonafide passenger in the absence of evidence
to the contrary. Respondent had produced no evidence to prove that the deceased was
not bonafide passenger.
k) That the burden to prove the untoward incident and victim was not bonafide
passenger rest upon railways. It is impossible to be discharge by the dependants who
have no knowledge about the custody of the ticket. It is likely that such a deceased
passenger had valid ticket but same was lost in the accident. To place the onus of
 proof on the dependent would amount to denial of benefits of the legislation to them
for the reason beyond their control.
l) That, the Railway Claims Tribunal had erred in not noting that station master who
had issued station master's memo he was not an eye witness and he was not examined
before the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal. The station Master erroneously
mentioned in the memo that the deceased was hit by unknown train. Station Master
had not seen the accident taking place. The station master was in his cabin at
Vithalwadi Station. Therefore mere mentioning does not even qualify as to hearsay
evidence. The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have discardecd it out
rightly as in admissible evidence.
m) The Hon'ble Railway Claims ought to have noted that the remark of the police and
panchas were not based upon positive findings during the investigation it had to be
proved with cogent evidence.
n) The Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have noted that the policeman as
deseribed in the documents iS modestly educated person and the panchas are the
ordinary labourer persons having no fixed place of residence. They cannot be
expected to form a credible opinion in the absence of any credible findings on record.
The contents of police report and inquest panchnama cannot be admitted as evidence.
It can only be used for the purpose of contradictions and admission of the fact of
occurrence of the incident, but not the manner in which the evident took place. The
purpose of the inquest panchnama only used the cause of death is being accidental or
suicide. Neither the panchas nor the police persons were examined in the Hon'ble
Railway Claims Tribunal for determination of the manner in which the accident had
taken place, therefore no reliance can be placed upon the mere mention in the inquest
panchnama about the manner in which the accident had occurred,
o) That the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal had erred in not notling that have the
deceased is alleged to committed criminal offence Under Section 147 of the Railway
Act had there becn sufficient material on record the investigating officer ought to
have registered FIR and the chargesheet should have been filed by the Railway
police, in the present case the incident is registered as accidental death U/s. 147 of the
Cr.P.C. and in the present case the accidental death report is filed by the investigating
 accepted by the Executive Magistrate as accidental death report. It is submitted with
due respect that the dependent of the deceased cannot be denied the benefits under the
welfare legislation without proving the deceased guilty in the Court of law of the
offence attributed to him.
p) That the Civil law is based upon the principle preponderance of probabilities. The
only probability in the abovesaid circumstances is that the deceased had fallen down
from the running train while travelling ona train. Accidentally falling down from the
running train is covered U/s. 123(c)(2) of the Indian Railway Act as an untoward
incident.
q) When the accident and death is admitted, it is the duty of the railways to prove the
exception from the exceptions (a) to (o) of Section 124-A of the Indian Railway Act
to deny the liability of payment of compensation to the victim. They had failed to
prove any exception from (a) to (e) under Section 124-A ofthe Railway Act.
r) That respondent had not produced any contra evidence during the investigation and
trial. The Respondent had not examined any witness in the Hon'ble Court to support
their contentions.
s) That the charge alleged by the respondent is that the deceased was crossing the
railway track which is an offence under Section 147 of the Railway Act, if there was
sufficient material before the police, they ought to have filed FIR followed by the
charge sheet which has not been done by the police and the case closed as accidental
death Report so there being no criminal liability. So it is clear that the deceased was
not involved in any criminal liability. There can be no denial of benefits under
welfare legislation to which the dependents of the deceased are entitled for
compensation on account of death of deceased in railway accident.
t) It is well settled that the standard of evidence required to prove the criminal liability
must, 'be beyond reasonable doubt and for civil liability it is based upon the principle
at 'preponderance of probabilities. As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the Jamila and other case it is held that admittedly there is no eyewitness to the
incident and the case of the railways that the deceased was standing at the door of the
train compartment in negligence manner from where he fell down is entirely based
upon speculation assuming that the deceased fell down from the train due to his own
 negligence it is not a criminal act so as to attract clause (c) of provision to Section
124(A) of Railway Act.
u) That even if two equally probable's u) inference can be drawn about the manner in
which the incident had occurred, the one which is favorable to the victim. The object
of the act is to make payment of compensation to the victim of the accident, but not to
deny the payment of compensation to the victims.
6) That the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have 6) held that Sec. 124-A of the Railway Act
laid down 'no fault liability' / strict liability for an 'untoward incident' U/s. 123(c) and
124- A of the Railway Act. Hence negligence is hot ground to deny the compensation
to the dependents.
7) The appellant have not filed any writ or appeal either in this Hon'ble Court or in the
Supreme Court of India relating to the subject matter of the present appeal save and
except this present first appeal.
8) In the circumstances narrated and explained above the appellant most respectfully
Submitted and prayed that, the said order dated 31/01/2020 passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal in OA No. (II u)/MCC/ 1134/2013 be set aside.
9) The Appellant not received any notice of caveat.
10) The Appellant's appeal U/s. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 be
registered as a First Appeal and allowed under the provisions of Civil Procedure
Code.
11) That the Govermment of India had revised the amount of compensation payable
under the Rules of payment of compensation as per PART-I of the Schedule
appended to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and compansation) Rules 1990 as
amended in 2017 the Appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with
interest.

Foot Notes:-
(I)Limitation:-
As Per Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the limitation period is
90days for filing first appeal. The Railway Claims Tribunal passed order 31.01.2020,
applied for certified copy on 31.01.2020, copy prepared on 05.03.2020 and The copy
supplied on 06.03.2020 and appeal filed on 30.06.2021. If there is any delay, due to
Covid19 Pandemic the same may be condoned as per the Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Civil) No.3 of 2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(II)Caveat:-
The Appellant havé not received any caveat from the Respondent.

(III) Jurisdiction:-
The impugned order and judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Railways
Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai and this Hon'ble Court is the First
Appellate Court and therefore has jurisdiction to try and adjudication. TV) Valuation:
AS per Part-I of Schedule appended to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and untoward
incidents (compensation) Rules,1990 as amended in 2017 the appellant is entitled to
Bet compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (V) CourtFees The Appellant had paid Rs. 25/-
court fees as per Clause 13(c) of Schedule II of Maharashtra Court, Fee Act, 1959.

Shri. V.N. More

Advocate for the Appellant,
Having office at : Plot No. 16,
Deepali CHS. Ltd., Room No. 13,
Third Floor, Shivai Nagar,
Thane (W).
ROLL NO. MAH/1753/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. OF 2021

Shri. Ramdas Omkar Sonawane

Ors. ….Appellants
(Original Applicants)
V/s.

Union of India ….Respondent

PAPER BOOK

__________________________________________

Dated January 2023

______________________________
Vasant N. More
Adv. For Appellants
Plot no.16
Dipali CHS.Ltd.,block No.13,
3rd floor Shivaji Nagar Thane(W)
Mob. No.9702830733
______________________________