SEETABAI PANDHRINATH TEMGHABRE vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

ppn 1 36.fa-315.12.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH FIRST APPEAL NO.315 OF 2012 NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.01.20 18:17:15 +0530 Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare Aged about 48 years, Occupation- House-Wife, R/o. Indiranagar Cyndigate, Zopadpatti, Opposite Pournima, Talkies, Murbad Road, Kalyan (E), District – Thane ….Appellant (Orig. Applicant) V/s. Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway C.S.T., Mumbai .…Respondent (Orig. Respondent) ---- Mr. Sainand Chaugule for the appellant. Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. Gautam Modanwal for the respondent. ---- CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 19th January 2026 Judgment : - 1. This appeal is filed by the original applicant against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 11 November 2011, whereby the application of the appellant came to be dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The issue which arises in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger ? ppn 2 36.fa-315.12.doc 3. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee of the respondent-railway. While travelling in an Express train, he fell down between Khandala and Monkey Hill point and lost his life. 4. The learned Tribunal gave a finding, which is not challenged, that it is a case of an accidental fall from a train. Therefore, insofar as the issue of “untoward incident” is concerned, it is concluded since there is no challenge to it by the respondent. 5. The only issue which remains to be considered is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 6. Explanation to Section 124A of the Railways