19 June 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The case of Mahadev Krishna Tambe (deleted as dead) & Another v/s The Union of India, represented by General Manager, heard at the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, concluded on June 19, 2025. The Honorable Mr. Justice N.J. Jamadar presided over the First Appeal No. 50 of 2015. Mohan Rao, Advocate, represented the appellants, while Suresh Kumar, along with Smita Thakur, Advocates, appeared for the respondent. The judgment was published in 2025 BHC-AS 24430.

High Court Overturns Tribunal's Decision in Railway Compensation Case:

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay overturned a Railway Claims Tribunal decision, emphasizing a "no-fault liability" principle in railway accident compensation cases. The appeal concerned the death of Amit Tambe, son of Mahadev Krishna Tambe (Applicant No. 1) and brother of Smt. Sonal (Applicant No. 2), who died in an "untoward incident" on July 25, 2011.

Background of the Case:

Amit Tambe, 25 years old and a bachelor, was traveling from Malad to Mahalaxmi Station on a valid second-class season ticket when he accidentally fell from a running train between Lower Parel and Mahalaxmi Station, sustaining fatal injuries. His father, Mahadev, and sister, Sonal, filed a compensation claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, had dismissed the claim on June 16, 2014, concluding that the applicants failed to prove the death was due to an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was found on the "Up through fast track next to STA line," suggesting he could not have fallen from a slow train, and his season ticket didn't necessarily mean he was traveling at the time of the incident. Smt. Sonal had initially withdrawn her claim. During the appeal, Mahadev Krishna Tambe passed away, and Smt. Sonal continued the appeal as his sole legal representative.

Arguments Presented:

Mr. Mohan Rao, counsel for the appellant, argued that the Tribunal erred by inventing a defense not pleaded or proven by the respondent. He highlighted that a valid season ticket and identity card found on the deceased established him as a bona fide passenger. Mr. Rao also emphasized the welfare nature of Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, advocating for a purposive interpretation, citing Supreme Court judgments in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and others and Union of India vs. Rina Devi. He further contended that Smt. Sonal, as a legal representative of Mahadev (who was a dependent under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act), was entitled to prosecute the appeal, relying on Kiran Damodar Paygode and another vs. Union of India. Mr. Suresh Kumar, representing the respondent, defended the Tribunal's findings, stating that the movement of slow and fast trains on specific tracks is common knowledge. He also argued that Smt. Sonal, being a married sister, was not a dependent under Section 123(b) and had withdrawn her claim, therefore the appeal should abate after Mahadev's death.

Court's Consideration and Ruling:

The High Court considered two main aspects: the legality of the impugned award and Smt. Sonal's locus to prosecute the appeal.

Legality and Correctness of the Impugned Award:

The Court found it "incontrovertible" that the deceased was found on the railway tracks, as evidenced by the Charge Report and Accident Memo. The inquest panchnama also indicated that the deceased "might have fallen down from an unknown local train" and detailed the fatal injuries.

The Court emphasized that Section 124-A of the Railways Act incorporates the principle of "no-fault liability," meaning compensation is payable regardless of wrongful act, neglect, or default by the railway administration, unless specifically excluded by the proviso. It further noted the Supreme Court's directive in Prabhakaran (supra) to adopt a purposive, rather than literal, interpretation of "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" to ensure that a large number of victims receive compensation. The High Court criticized the Tribunal's finding as based on "surmises and conjunctures" due to the absence of specific pleading or evidence from the respondent regarding the impossibility of the incident. Given the nature of injuries and the finding of the season ticket and identity card, the Court concluded that the deceased succumbed to injuries due to an "untoward incident" and was a bona fide passenger.

Locus of the Legal Representative:

The Court delved into the definition of "dependent" under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act. It clarified that certain relatives, like the wife, husband, son, daughter, and parents of an unmarried or minor deceased passenger, are dependents irrespective of actual financial dependency. Other relatives, further in kinship, must prove actual dependency. Since Mahadev (A1) was the father of the unmarried deceased, he was "undoubtedly a dependent" and not required to prove actual dependency. The Court affirmed that the right to receive compensation crystallizes on the date of the passenger's death in an untoward incident, and this liability is absolute. Citing Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and various judgments, including Shri Rameshwar Manjhi (deceased) through his son Shri Lakhiram Manjhi V/s. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery and Ors. and Krishnakumar G. V/s. Union of India, the Court held that the right to claim compensation is not personal and is heritable. The Court also noted the explicit provisions for substitution of legal representatives in the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989. Therefore, the Court concluded that Smt. Sonal, as the legal representative of Mahadev (A1), could prosecute the appeal and claim compensation.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing and setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and award. The respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant (A2) in her capacity as the legal representative of Mahadev Krishna Tambe (A1) within one month, failing which the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum.