Patna High Court – Orders
Podhi Ram And Anr vs The Union Of India Through The General … on 29 July, 2026
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.24 of 2016
======================================================
1. Podhi Ram S/o Govind Ram
2. Fulpati Devi W/o Podhi Ram
All are resident of village Rupas Maruahi, PO Kal Diyara, PS Salimpur,
Dist. Patna (Bihar)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central Railway
Hazipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
6 29-07-2026
Heard Mr. Keshav Mohan Murari, learned counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel
appearing for the Union of India.
2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2015 passed in O.A.
No. 00274 of 2014 by the learned Member
(Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, by
which the claim application preferred by the appellants for
compensation on account of the death of their unmarried son,
Harinandan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), in
an untoward railway incident, was dismissed.
3. The appellants, who are the father and mother
( claimants) are the only surviving dependents.
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
2/11
4.The factual matrix of the case is that on 11.09.2013,
the deceased was travelling alone from Bakhtiyarpur Railway
Junction to Barh Railway Junction by Train No. 63208 DN on a
valid journey ticket. It is alleged that while he was boarding the
train, it suddenly started moving with a heavy jolt, causing him
to lose his balance and accidentally fallen from the moving
train. As a result, both his legs came under the wheels of the
train and were amputated and he also sustained a head injury
due to which he succumbed on the spot.
5. One Amarkant Kumar, son of Amrit Das and cousin
of the deceased, submitted a written complaint before the
GRPS, Bakhtiyarpur, on the same date, pursuant to which U.D.
Case No. 32 of 2013 was registered. The final report submitted
after inquiry found the death to be accidental, having been
caused by a fall from a moving train. The applicants-appellants
filed the claim application along with the requisite documents
and produced ten documentary exhibits in support of their claim
before the Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, the Railways filed a written
statement denying the claim of the appellants. The claim of the
applicants-appellants is contrary to the facts and the statements
made in the Station Master memo, written report, FIR, death
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
3/11
certificate and copy of the ticket filed by the applicant-
appellants. It was submitted that from the aforesaid documents,
it is clear that the deceased was not a victim of an untoward
incident and the statement made in the written statement is an
afterthought and concocted one. The deceased was not a bona
fide passenger of the said train, which is clear from the alleged
ticket issued at 12:49 hours on 11.09.2013 and the Station
Master memo was issued at 12:32 hours, which falsifies the case
of the claimants-appellants. Therefore, the claim of the
applicants is fit to be dismissed.
7. The claimant-appellant examined himself as A.W.-1
and was also cross-examined by the learned counsel for the
respondent on behalf of the Railways. However, the respondent-
Railways did not file any document or adduce any oral or
documentary evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal to
rebut the claim of the claimant-appellant.
8. After hearing the parties and considering the
materials available on record as well as the evidence adduced by
the applicants-appellants, the learned Tribunal held that the
applicants-appellants had miserably failed to prove their case
and, accordingly, rejected the claim. The learned Tribunal
further observed that the journey ticket placed on record was
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
4/11
issued after the incident, as is evident from the Station Master’s
memo issued by the Station Master on duty at Bakhtiyarpur
Railway Junction. The memo mentioned the time as 12:32
hours, whereas the journey ticket was issued at 12:49 hours. The
difference of 17 minutes between the issuance of the memo and
the journey ticket created doubt regarding the claim, and,
accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the case did not fall
within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Indian Railways
Act, 1989.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants-
submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger having a
valid ticket from Bakhtiyarpur to Barh Junction. The inquest
report as well as the final report submitted by the GRP
supported the case of the applicants-appellants. The postmortem
report also suggests that the cause of death was due to crush
injuries caused by some heavy object. However, the respondent-
Railways has not filed the D.R.M. report as required under the
Rules, and as such, an adverse inference can be drawn against
the Railways. The Railways have not proved their pleadings or
brought any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the evidence
adduced on behalf of the applicants-appellants. Learned counsel
for the applicants-appellants further submitted that the authority
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
5/11
disputing the time of accident as mentioned in the Station
Master’s memo was not conclusive evidence to prove exact
timing of the accident and, therefore, variation of few minutes
in between timing in issue of ticket and time mentioned in
memo of authority regarding accident, not sufficient to brush
aside the claim of the claimant that deceased was not bona fide
passenger. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Diwakar Kumar Pandey v. Union of India
reported in 2013(3) PLJR 380. Further submission is that,
admittedly, in the instant case, the report of the Divisional
Railway Manager was neither filed by the respondent-Railways
along with the written statement nor was even subsequently
tendered during evidence. The Divisional Railway Manager did
not prepare any report in compliance with the mandatory
provisions of rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 whereas the police,
while preparing the inquest report, stated that the death of the
passenger had taken place due to train accident. Learned counsel
for the appellant argued that the Railways, having withheld the
DRM report, must suffer an adverse inference. Reliance has
been placed in the case of Kanchan and others versus Union
of India and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 1369. In the said
case, the learned Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
6/11
Court at Chandigarh held that “since the respondent Railways
intentionally withheld the report of the Divisional Railway
Manager, there is no reason why an adverse inference should
not be drawn against the said respondent and it be held that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger”. Lastly, learned counsel
for the applicants- appellants submitted that the learned Claims
Tribunal has not considered the entire materials and evidence on
record in the right perspective, though it is a piece of beneficial
legislation and the very Act is for the victim and not for the
Railways. Reliance has been placed on the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others,
reported in 2008 ACJ 1895.
10. Learned counsel for the Railways opposed the
claim of the applicants- appellants and submitted that the
deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor is there any
document to show or prove that the deceased was travelling on a
valid ticket. The journey ticket was issued at 12:49 hours, much
after the said incident, i.e., 12:32 hours. The Station Master’s
memo falsifies the case of the claimants-appellants.
11. Considering the submissions of the parties and
after analyzing the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
7/11
Bench, this Court is of the view that it is an admitted fact that
the deceased was found on a down railway track and, on the
application of the cousin of the deceased, U.D. Case No. 32 of
2013 was registered on 11.09.2013, i.e., on the same day of the
incident. After due inquiry, the GRP submitted its final report
stating therein that it was a case of accidental death due to fall
from a moving train. Railway journey ticket No. 82309724 from
Bakhtiyarpur to Barh Railway Station was issued on 11.09.2013
at 12:49 hours, whereas the Station Master’s memo was issued
on 11.09.2013 at 12:32 hours. The Railway authorities could not
produce the Station Master, who issued the same for proving the
said document. Moreover, the Railways did not choose to file
the DRM report, which is essential for deciding the matter in a
railway accident. The claim of the applicants-appellants was
rejected on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger and on the basis of doubt regarding the difference of
timing between the time mentioned in the issue of the ticket and
the time of accident mentioned in the station memo issued by
the Station Master. However, such discrepancy is not sufficient
to brush aside the claim of the applicants-appellants that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger relying upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Diwakar Kumar Pandey
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
8/11
(supra).The claimants-appellants proved the accidental death of
deceased, who died due to falling down from the train while
having a valid railway journey ticket. The material evidence
shows that the son of the claimants-applicants died due to run
over by the train as a result of falling down from the train. The
postmortem report also supported the case of the applicants-
appellants.
12. In such view of the matter, the judgment and
order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned Member
(Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A.
No. 00274 of 2014 are accordingly set aside, and the claim
petition of the applicant-appellants stands allowed.
13. Now, with regard to question of amount of
compensation in respect of accident, the same has been settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs
Dilip and others (Civil Appeal No. 9124 of 2019) which reads
as follows:-
“The question, whether in respect of
accidents that occurred before the Railways
Accidents Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 27.12.2016, the
amount of compensation has to be arrived, taking
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
9/11into account the base figure of Rs. 4 lakhs or Rs. 8
lakhs was considered by this Court in Union of
India vs. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572].”
14. The aforesaid judgment was further explained by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Radha Yadav reported in [2019 4 SCC 410] which reads as
under:-
“10. The issue raised in the matter does
not really require any elaboration as in our view,
the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi
is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that
the amount of compensation payable on the date of
accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first
be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less
than the amount prescribed as on the date of the
award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of
these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had
arisen before the amendment was brought in, the
basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in
existence before the amendment and on such basic
figure reasonable rate of interest would be
calculated. If there be any difference between the
amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in
the Schedule as on the date of the award, the
higher of two figures would be the measure of
compensation. For instance, in case of a death in
an accident which occurred before amendment, the
basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. If, after
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
10/11applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure
were to be less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was
brought in by way of amendment, the claimant
would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. If, however, the
amount of original compensation with rate of
interest were to exceed the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-,
the compensation would be in terms of figure in
excess of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the
benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible.
Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear.
The issue does not need any further clarification or
elaboration.”
15. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that:
“The compensation be computed taking
interest @ 7.5% per annum in accordance with
both the modalities namely;
(a) Which was in existence before the
amendment with Rs. 4 lakhs as the base figure.
(b) Which came into existence after the
amendment, with Rs. 8 lakhs as the base figure.
The compensation shall thereafter be
payable in accordance with the sum which is
greater of the two, as laid down in the aforesaid
judgments.”
16. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
in the light of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court MA No.24 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026
11/11
Civil Appeal No. 9124 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 6486
of 2018.
17. The learned Tribunal is directed to calculate the
amount of compensation in the light of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted above and ensure the payment of
the same at the earliest.
18. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U
