Jharkhand High Court
Bindu Devi vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:34148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 355 of 2020
1. Bindu Devi, W/o Late Kailash Mahato
2. Surjit Kumar Mahato, minor S/o Late Kailash Mahato
3. Poonam Kumari, minor D/o Late Kailash Mahato
Both Sl. 2 and 3 are represented through their natural guardian Bindu Devi
(Mother)
4. Radhiya Devi, W/o Basudeo Mahato (mother of the deceased)
5. Basudeo Mahato, S/o Ruplal Mahato (father of the deceased)
All residents of Chandra Site, Chaita, Ghunghusa, P.O. + P.S.-Gomoh,
District-Dhanbad
.... .... Appellants
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Central Railways,
Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar), PIN-844101
... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants :Ms. Ashna Khanam, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
------
Order No. 06 / Dated : 13.11.2025.
Claimants are in appeal against the judgment passed on 10.02.2020 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in Case No. OA-IIU / RNC / 09 / 2018 in which the claim application has been dismissed.
2. The claim application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act seeking compensation of Rs. 8 Lakh with interest for the death of deceased Kailash Mahto in a railway accident on 10.05.2011.
3. As per the case of the claimant, the deceased was travelling by Train No. 12382 (Poorva Express) Allahabad to Gomoh and while getting down from the train at Gomoh Railway Station, he slipped and came under the track resulting in fatal injuries in the accident and died of fatal injuries during course of treatment in the hospital.
4. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant.
5. From perusal of the lower court record, it appears that copy of FIR, copy of Postmortem Report, Inquest Report, Challan, General Ticket etc. were brought on record during enquiry before learned Tribunal. However, the claim has been dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not having any railway ticket at the time of accident which was procured and managed post facto.
2025:JHHC:34148 Further, the accident was the result of the deceased own reckless conduct in trying to alight from a train when it was in movement.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in order to entitle the claimant for compensation, the only requirement is that the deceased died in an untoward incident in a train, and that he was a bonafide passenger at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has not discussed the evidence, which was brought on record either oral or documentary and the claim has been dismissed only on the ground that the railway ticket which was produced was of a date after the said accident. It is further argued that in the oral evidence, it has come as stated by AW1, AW2 and AW3 on 10.05.2011. Further, the requirement of railway ticket is not a sine qua non for establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 3 SCC 572 (Union of India Vs. Rina Devi).
7. Learned counsel for the Railways has defended the impugned order and submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the elder brother of the deceased who has been examined as AW 3 and he has stated in the FIR that the accident took place on 08.05.2011, whereas the ticket which has been brought on record is of 09.05.2011. There is contradiction between the testimony of the witnesses and the version as given in the FIR. Further, the case was lodged on 10.05.2011 and the postmortem of the dead body was also conducted on 10.05.2011 which will be evident from the document adduced into evidence.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, there is not a scintilla of doubt that deceased Kailash Mahto died in an untoward incident while he was alighting from a train at Gomoh Railway Station. This part of the case of the claimant is established by the FIR, Inquest Report and the Forwarding Memo for postmortem. All of these consistently state that death was due to fall from the train. Postmortem examination report also attributes the cause of death to be hard blunt crushing force injury caused due to railway wheels. On these evidences, there cannot be any room for doubt that the death occurred in an untoward incident while the deceased was coming down to the train. Argument with regard to bona fide passenger cannot be taken true far in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi (supra).
9. Learned Tribunal without considering any evidence and discussing the materials on record has dismissed the claim application.
2025:JHHC:34148
10. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is not sustainable and, accordingly, is set aside.
11. Since the accident took place on 10.05.2011, therefore, in terms of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) is awarded to the claimants/appellants with interest @ 7.5% from the date of accident which will be paid by the respondent- Railway within a month of the order.
12. Misc. Appeal stands allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -
Uploaded 19.11.2025