Patna High Court – Orders
Smt. Sanju Devi vs The Union Of India, Through The General … on 15 July, 2026
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.637 of 2016
======================================================
Smt. Sanju Devi, w/o late Rajendra Kumar Choudhary, resident of village -
Anath Tola, Gangauli, Circle, Simari, PS. Gangauli, District - Buxar, Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union Of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Kanak Verma, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
15 15-07-2026
Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel
for the appellant and Ms. Kanak Verma, learned CGC for the
Union of India.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2016 passed in
Claim Application OA No. 00154 of 2005 by the learned
Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench
at Patna whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the
claim of the appellant for grant of compensation on account of
death of the husband of the applicant/appellant in an untoward
railway incident.
3. Earlier, this appeal was heard and remanded the
matter under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Rule 28 of the Civil
Procedure Code with a direction that the learned Claims
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
2/13
Tribunal shall provide an opportunity to the claimant to adduce
her evidence and proper opportunity also be given to Union of
India to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimant within a
period of three months of the order of this Court and also
directed that after recording the evidence, the learned Claims
Tribunal shall remit back the same to this Court.
4. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the claimant
filed an affidavit in support of her evidence as AW-2, namely,
Ranjeet Choudhary on 11.03.2024, who adduced his evidence
on 13.06.2024 and was duly cross-examined by the counsel for
the Railways/Union of India. The learned Member (Judicial) of
the Claims Tribunal, Patna after recording the evidence of
Ranjeet Choudhary as AW-2 sent the same to this Court, which
was received by the Registry of this Court and the same was
placed for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
5. In order to determine the matter in its correct
perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate the case of the
parties. The claimant/appellant filed a claim application seeking
compensation. The deceased was husband of the appellant and
he boarded Saket Express (Down) bearing Train No. 1067 on
30.03.2005 from Surat Railway Junction for Buxar Railway
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
3/13
Station after purchasing a valid second class train ticket and
during course of his journey, he had accidentally fallen down
due to sudden jerk of the train on 30.03.2005 itself. The
appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs along with
interest pendente lite as death of her husband occurred due to an
untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as Railways Act).
As per Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, the claimant is
entitled for compensation as per the averments made in the
claim application.
6. The appellant filed all the relevant documents
before the Tribunal and adduced evidence in support of her
claim. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/Railways filed written statement in which he had
contended that the claim petition is not maintainable under the
law. The death of the deceased occurred due to run over by the
Saket Express (Down) bearing Train No. 1067 near Barud
Railway Station on 30.03.2005. Hence, the alleged accident is
not an untoward incident and as such, do not fall within the
purview of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and further
contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the
time and place of alleged incident as no valid ticket has been
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
4/13
produced by the applicant/appellant. The claim application is
also not maintainable under Section 124 or under Section
124(A) of the Railways Act as the applicant/appellant has failed
to make out a case as per the said provision and the applicant is
not entitled to any relief or compensation, as such, the
application deserves to be dismissed. However, the
respondent/Railways has not filed any document or adduced any
oral or documentary evidence before the learned Claims
Tribunal.
7. The claimant/applicant has examined herself as
AW-1 and was also cross-examined by the learned counsel for
the respondent on behalf of the Railways. The appellant has also
got examined an important witness, namely, Ranjeet Choudhary
as AW-2, who had seen the deceased purchasing the ticket from
the railway counter and also deposed that he boarded the
deceased in general train compartment of Saket Express (Down)
bearing Train No. 1067 on 30.03.2005. The deceased was
brother-in-law of AW-2.
8. After hearing the parties and upon considering the
materials available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has
held that the applicant/appellant has not proved her case by
giving cogent evidence and reliable documentary evidence.
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
5/13
There is no eye witness to the alleged untoward incident. It is
further mentioned that from station memo, F.I.R., panchaitnama
and the final report, it is evidently clear that the deceased was
run over by the train which doesn’t come within the purview of
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. No journey ticket has
been filed by the applicant/appellant to prove that the deceased
was travelling by the said train and further observed that the
applicant has tried to dupe and mislead this court by making a
false claim for getting unlawful compensation. It is further noted
that as per Section 110 of the Indian Railways Act, the burden of
proof lies on the applicant/appellant to prove her case for getting
the compensation from the respondent/Railways. The applicant
has miserably failed to prove her claim by producing any
cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to the effect that the
deceased had got injured and had died due to alleged untoward
incident during his valid train journey and dismissed the claim
application of the applicant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the Tribunal has denied the claim of the applicant on the
ground that the claimant has failed to prove that the deceased
had got injured and had died in the alleged untoward incident
during his alleged valid train journey as mentioned under
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
6/13
Section 110 of the Railways Act which is in respect of the goods
and not in respect of a person. He has also submitted that the
GRPS, Khandwa issued a certificate mentioning therein that the
deceased fell down from the above-noted train on the alleged
date of occurrence and he died. This piece of evidence is enough
to prove that the deceased lost his life due to an untoward
incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989. It is further submitted that on perusal of evidence of AW-
2, Ranjeet Chouhdary, who had seen the deceased purchasing
the ticket from the railway counter. The witness also clearly
stated that he was present at the Surat Railway Station when the
deceased had boarded the train. Further, it is submitted that
though the ticket was not found from the possession of the
deceased but his case is squarely covered with the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Rina Devi reported in 2018 ACJ 1441. The death of the
deceased occurred due to railway accident is proved by
certificate given by the GRPS, Khandwa. The evidence of
applicant/AW-1 is that during the course of journey, her
deceased husband accidentally fell down from the alleged
running train near Barud Railway Station on 30.03.2005 and
died on the spot due to injury sustained in an untoward incident
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
7/13
and in this regard GRPS, Khandwa had registered a U.D. Case
and investigated the matter at length and after recording the
statements of various persons including the family of the
deceased has submitted its final report stating therein that this is
case of accidental death due to fall from alleged running train.
By producing oral as well as documentary evidence, the
applicant/appellant has proved her case beyond all reasonable
doubts.
10. Moreover, respondent/Railways despite having
been granted several opportunities has neither placed any oral
nor any documentary evidence to rebut the evidences adduced
on behalf of the appellant. Moreover, the respondent/Railways
has not submitted D.R.M report as required under the rules and
as such, an adverse interference can be drawn against him.
11. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits
the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the entire
material evidence on record in right perspective though it is
piece of beneficial legislation and the very act is for the victim
and not for the Railways.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Railways
(Union of India) has vehemently opposed the claim of the
appellant and submitted that the deceased was neither a
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
8/13
bonafide passenger nor there is any document to show or prove
that the deceased had fallen down from the train. It is also
submitted that the evidence of Ranjeet Choudhary (AW-2), who
had seen the deceased while purchasing the ticket, is an
interested person and he happens to be the brother-in-law of the
deceased. There is no eye witness to the alleged untoward
incident/accident. From the station memo, F.I.R., panchaitnama
and the final report, it is clear that the deceased was run over by
the train, which doesn’t come within the purview of Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, therefore, the appellant has failed
to prove her case and the learned Claims Tribunal, Patna has
rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.
13. Having considered the submissions of the parties
and after scrutinizing the order of Railway Claims Tribunal,
Patna, this Court finds that it is an admitted fact that the
deceased was found between the railway track and a UD Case
was instituted and after identification, the dead body was given
to the relatives of the deceased. The post-mortem report also
supported the claim of the appellant. The person, who saw the
deceased purchasing the ticket has proved the said fact. After
remand of the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna by
this Court, Ranjeet Choudhary (AW-2) was examined and cross-
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
9/13
examined, who did not demolish the claim of the appellant,
therefore, the deceased purchased the ticket from the railway
counter is proved from evidence adduced by AW-2 and that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger. The Khandwa police
registered a UD Case on the basis of station memo issued by the
Station Manager (Barud Railway Station). The police had
recovered a telephone number and diary from the pocket of the
deceased and informed the family members of the claimant on
20.04.2005, upon which the relatives immediately reached there
and identified the deceased by his photograph. The police
themselves cremated the dead body on its own and death
certificate (Exhibit-7) was issued by the authority in the name of
Rajendra Kumar Choudhary son of Shri Kashinath Choudhary
issued by the competent authority. The police has submitted
final report i.e. Exhibit-A9 which indicates that the deceased
had been run over by the train.
14. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the materials available on record, this Court finds
that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the material
evidence, which shows that the husband of the claimant died
due to run over by the train as a result of falling down from the
train. The post-mortem report also supported the claim of the
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
10/13
claimant/appellant. In such view of the matter, I am of the
opinion that the claimant/appellant has proved her case on the
basis of materials available on record.
15. 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) reported in
(2024) 11 SCC 415 which reads as follows:-
“The question, whether in respect of
accidents that occurred before the Railways
Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 were amended
w.e.f. 27.12.2016, the amount of
compensation has to be arrived, taking into
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].”
16. 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 (3) 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
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
11/13Court 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 applying
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,
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
12/13however, 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.”
17. In the case of Union of India vs. Dilip & Ors.
(Supra), 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.”
Patna High Court MA No.637 of 2016(15) dt.15-07-2026
13/13
18. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above
referred case has ascertained the modalities with regard to
quantum of compensation, and accordingly, 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, preferably, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
19. In the result, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
20. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stands disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U
