Bombay High Court: In an appeal under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (‘Railways Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that a deceased railway employee, who died after falling from a train while travelling on a privilege pass, was a bona fide passenger. The Court emphasised that merely because the deceased had not filled in journey particulars on the pass, it could not be held that he was travelling without a valid pass. The Court noted that while misuse of a pass may invite penalties under the Rules, no such misuse was established in this case. Consequently, the Court, while setting aside the Tribunal’s order, allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of Rs 3 lakhs with interest, subject to an upper limit of Rs 8 lakhs, to be distributed equally among the dependents.
Background:
The incident arose when the deceased, a railway employee, fell from an Express train between Khandala and Monkey Hill point and died. The Tribunal had already found that it was a case of accidental fall but denied compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
The appellant argued that the deceased held a valid second-class free pass under the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 (‘Rules’), entitling him to travel. It was submitted that the deceased was travelling lawfully and therefore compensation was payable.
However, the respondent contended that the deceased had failed to fill in the required particulars on the pass, such as date of journey, and therefore could not be treated as a bona fide passenger.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that Explanation to Section 124A of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to include a railway servant on duty and a person who has purchased a valid ticket or holds a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an “untoward incident”. The Court noted that the deceased was not on duty at the time of the incident, but he was entitled to travel under the privilege pass rules.
The Court observed that although the deceased had not filled in the details of the journey on the pass, the incident occurred during the period when the pass was valid. The Court highlighted that merely because an employee holding a valid pass fails to mention details himself, it cannot be held that he was travelling without a valid pass. The Court further noted that there was nothing on record to show that the deceased had exceeded the entitlement of trips under the pass, and therefore no adverse inference could be drawn.
The Court emphasised that if a pass is misused, the Rules prescribe fines and penalties, but the present case did not fall within such categories. The Court observed that the benefit of doubt must be given to the deceased, and it cannot be said that he was not a bona fide passenger.
The Court also referred to similar decisions Pulipaka Varalakshmi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 263, wherein the contention was rejected that a deceased railway employee travelling on a pass was not a bona fide passenger. Following the ratio of Pulipaka Varalakshmi (supra), the Court held that compensation was payable, though reduced to Rs 3 lakhs in view of the deceased’s failure to endorse details on the pass.
The Court quashed the Tribunal’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellant be entitled to Rs 3 lakhs plus interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of accident till payment, subject to a cap of Rs 8 lakhs. The Court further directed that the compensation be transferred equally to the dependents of the deceased within eight weeks of application.
[Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India, First Appeal No. 315 of 2012, decided on 19-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sainand Chaugule
For the Respondent: T. J. Pandian a/w Gautam Modanwal