# SEETABAI PANDHRINATH TEMGHABRE vs UNION OF INDIA

Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 2026-01-19
Citation: FA/315/2012
Petitioner: SEETABAI PANDHRINATH TEMGHABRE
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA

[Official PDF on Bombay High Court website](https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/file/download/eyJpdiI6Im9IMkhyUVhzQnVBRWU1cHY1MVVmWkE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoibFo3ektMQ2dOMng2c21HYjZySUJCZ2ozVlI4WnBDY2xJblFWTUVHWmxReVZBTmtEbkptei8ycFIxWXZxNnNndDVxYTBENlFuT1FLbHNLR0xtMVJEOGc9PSIsIm1hYyI6ImFmNDcxYjMzMzg4MzM0OGZjZTlkMWFhZWY1NDQ0YjQ4YjdmNDVhY2VhMmFmYmE2MzRjYmIxYjA1NmU1MmUzOTMiLCJ0YWciOiIifQ==?expires=1782770206&signature=6d6beccac5802ee768b86d44826bff6d4fe7fa43ec546fd459a603eada1366ce)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

ppn 1 36.fa-315.12.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 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 Act, 1989 defines “passenger” to include

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2026/january/seetabai-pandhrinath-temghabre-vs-union-of-india