Proving “Untoward Incidents” under the Railways Act through Circumstantial Evidence: A Commentary on Shri Dhondu Sakharam Tambe & Anr. v. Union of India

Bombay High Court, First Appeal No. 1668 of 2016, Judgment dated 21 November 2025 (Jitendra Jain, J.)

I. Introduction

The decision of the Bombay High Court in Shri Dhondu Sakharam Tambe & Anr. v. Union of India is a significant contribution to the jurisprudence surrounding compensation for railway accidents and "untoward incidents" under the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

At its core, the judgment clarifies two recurrent and vexed issues before the Railway Claims Tribunal and appellate courts:

Whether an accident has to be reported to the Station Master or otherwise reflected in railway records to sustain a claim; and
How to prove that the victim was a bona fide passenger when the physical train ticket is unavailable.

The Court adopts a humane, evidence‑sensitive, and purposive approach, emphasising the beneficial character of the Railways Act and upholding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and first‑instance statements to establish both (i) the occurrence of an "untoward incident" and (ii) the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger. In doing so, it reverses the dismissal of the parents' claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and aligns trial‑level adjudication with binding Supreme Court authority and persuasive High Court precedent.

II. Factual Background and Procedural History

1. The incident

The deceased, Jaideep Tambe, was a 17‑year‑old boy who, on the night of 5 September 2008, travelled with friends by a Mumbai local train from Jogeshwari to Lower Parel to visit the famous Lalbaug Ganesh during the Ganesh festival. While the train was passing between Elphinstone Road and Lower Parel stations, Jaideep fell from the moving train due to the rush.

His young companions, instead of informing railway staff at the nearest station, rushed from Lower Parel back to the accident spot, picked him up and took him directly to K.E.M. Hospital, Parel. He was declared “brought dead” by the hospital authorities.

2. Post‑incident documentation

Key records generated immediately after the incident included:

An inquest panchnama dated 6 September 2008, which recorded the fact of the fall from the train.
A statement made by Mr. Vivek Tukral, a friend who accompanied the deceased, to police and doctors at K.E.M. Hospital on the early morning of 6 September 2008, narrating the incident.
A post‑mortem report from K.E.M. Hospital, recording the cause of death as head injury – a type of injury consistent with a fall from a moving train.
An investigation report by the Inspector, Railway Police (IPF/Headquarters/BCT) and another report by the Inspector, Railway Police, Dadar, both referring to the incident and recording the statement of Vivek Tukral.
A further police report (translated copy at page 45 of the paper book), describing the accident.

Separately, the evidence of another friend, Mr. Umesh Sanas, was later led before the Tribunal. He supported the case that there had been a fall from a moving train and that all friends, including Jaideep, had purchased tickets for the journey.

3. Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal

The parents of the deceased (the appellants before the High Court) filed a claim under section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking statutory compensation for death in an "untoward incident".

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) dismissed the claim by order dated 29 January 2016 on essentially two grounds:

There was no report of the incident in the records of the Station Master or relevant railway officials, and hence no proof of an "untoward incident" as understood under the Railways Act; and
The deceased was allegedly not a bona fide passenger because no ticket was produced and there was no railway record demonstrating his passenger status.

Aggrieved, the parents preferred the present First Appeal before the Bombay High Court.

III. Issues Before the High Court

The High Court identified and framed two central issues:

Untoward Incident: Whether the appellants had proved that Jaideep Tambe died as a result of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby entitling them to statutory compensation?
Bona Fide Passenger: Whether the deceased was shown to be a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident?

IV. Summary of the Judgment

1. Finding on “untoward incident”

The Court held that the appellants successfully established that Jaideep died due to an "untoward incident" – namely, a fall from a moving train. Crucially:

Non‑reporting to the Station Master (and the absence of any station record) was held not to be fatal to the claim.
The Court relied on a combination of circumstantial evidence and contemporaneous statements recorded at K.E.M. Hospital and by the police, as well as the inquest panchnama and post‑mortem report, to conclude that the fall from the train had indeed taken place.

2. Finding on “bona fide passenger”

The Court accepted the testimony of the deceased’s friends, particularly:

The statement of Vivek Tukral on 6 September 2008 that all of them had purchased train tickets for the journey; and
The evidence of Umesh Sanas in 2014, who reiterated that all had valid tickets and whose testimony remained unshaken in cross‑examination.

Applying the Supreme Court’s ratio in Union of India v. Rina Devi² and the Karnataka High Court decision in Hussain Bee v. Union of India³, the Court held that:

Production of the physical ticket years after the incident is not indispensable, especially where the incident occurred in 2008 and evidence was led in 2014.
Oral evidence of a companion is a legally acceptable means of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

3. Result and relief

The High Court:

Quashed and set aside the RCT’s order dated 29 January 2016.
Held that the appellants were entitled to compensation of ₹4,00,000 (the amount claimed in the original application), together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident till payment.
Imposed an overall cap of ₹8,00,000, directing that if the aggregate of principal plus interest exceeded ₹8,00,000, the claimants would receive only ₹8,00,000 – aligning the award with the then‑prevailing statutory maximum.
Directed payment to be made by bank transfer within eight weeks of the appellants furnishing bank details and a copy of the order to the Railways.

V. Legal and Doctrinal Analysis

A. Statutory Framework

Compensation claims in this case arise under:

Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989: Mandates payment of statutory compensation for death or injury resulting from an "untoward incident", on a strict‑liability basis, subject only to limited exceptions (e.g., suicide, self‑inflicted injury, acts done in a state of intoxication, etc.).
Section 123(c), Railways Act, 1989: Defines "untoward incident", which includes accidental fall of a passenger from a train.
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987: Establishes the Tribunal and its jurisdiction to decide such claims.

The Court repeatedly underscores that the Railways Act, in so far as it provides statutory compensation, is a beneficial (welfare‑oriented) legislation. This directly influences how evidence is to be appreciated and how ambiguities are to be resolved – normally in favour of the claimant, subject to absence of fraud or mala fides.

B. Proving an “Untoward Incident” Without a Station Master’s Report

1. The Tribunal’s error

The RCT treated the absence of any official railway record – particularly a report by the Station Master – as determinative against the appellants. In effect, it adopted a narrow and formalistic approach:

no Station Master report or railway memo, therefore no accident; and
consequently, no "untoward incident" proved within the meaning of the Act.

The High Court firmly rejects this approach as inconsistent with the nature of the legislation and with established evidentiary principles.

2. The High Court’s evidentiary approach

Justice Jitendra Jain considers the entire chain of circumstantial and documentary evidence, asking whether collectively it establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the incident happened as alleged.

Key points relied upon include:

Inquest Panchnama (6 September 2008): This was the first contemporaneous document formally recording the incident. The Court treats it as a crucial piece of evidence indicating that Jaideep had indeed fallen from a train.
Statement of Vivek Tukral at K.E.M. Hospital: Made in the early hours immediately after the incident, this statement was recorded by police and conveyed to doctors; it narrates the manner of the accident and is treated as reliable circumstantial evidence.
Post‑mortem Report: Prepared by K.E.M. Hospital, it records head injury as the cause of death. The Court notes that head injuries of this nature are “most likely to happen” when a person falls from a moving train.
Investigation Reports: The reports of IPF/Headquarters/BCT and the Inspector of Railway Police, Dadar, explicitly refer to statements recorded from Vivek Tukral at K.E.M. Hospital and confirm that police were informed by the hospital and Mumbai Central Police Station.
Friend’s Evidence – Umesh Sanas: His examination‑in‑chief corroborates the occurrence of the accident. The Court emphasizes that cross‑examination did not elicit anything that would justify disbelieving him or treating the incident as fabricated.

On this material, the Court concludes that:

“the circumstantial evidences which are referred above clearly indicates that the incident had happened and at the first available instance, same was narrated to various authorities at the hospital, and same has been noted in the letters and reports of these authorities.”

Accordingly, the non‑reporting of the accident to the Station Master is treated as an understandable human reaction from shocked teenagers prioritizing the victim’s medical care over formal reporting – not as an evidentiary void fatal to the claim.

C. Beneficial Legislation and Use of Circumstantial Evidence

The Court explicitly labels the Railways Act a beneficial legislation (para 11) and uses this classification to justify a more liberal evidentiary approach:

Even in criminal trials, where the standard of proof is higher (“beyond reasonable doubt”), circumstantial evidence is routinely accepted.
In compensation proceedings under a welfare statute, where the standard is merely a preponderance of probabilities, it would be unreasonable to insist on direct documentary proof from railway records when other credible circumstantial material exists.

This reasoning is important because it:

Moves the focus away from documentary formalities (like station reports) towards substantive truth‑seeking using all available evidence.
Signals to the Railway Claims Tribunal that it must not treat the absence of an internal railway record as conclusive against claimants in every case.

D. First‑Instance Statements and Analogy to Dying Declarations

In an interesting doctrinal move (para 12), the Court draws an analogy between:

dying declarations in criminal law, which are often given great weight because a person facing imminent death is presumed to speak the truth; and
statements made at the first available opportunity to State authorities (police, hospital staff) immediately after an accident.

The Court reasons that:

“when the accident happened, the statements made at the first available instance before the state authorities should be accepted as an important piece of evidence for adjudicating the occurrence of an 'untoward incident'.”

While such statements are not literally “dying declarations” in the technical sense, the analogy underscores the Court’s trust in:

spontaneous and contemporaneous narratives made in the immediate aftermath; and
the unlikelihood of concoction or collusion at such an early stage, especially in a case involving the sudden death of a teenager.

This offers a principled basis for courts and tribunals to give high probative value to first‑instance statements, even when formal railway documentation is missing.

E. Non‑Reporting to Station Master: Precedent and Policy

1. Reliance on Har Prashad Nanda v. Union of India¹

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Har Prashad Nanda had previously confronted a similar argument: that non‑reporting of an accident to the Station Master undermined the claim. The Court there rejected this formalistic line of reasoning, stating that:

In emergency situations, the primary human concern is to save the injured person, not to immediately approach railway authorities and lodge a report.

Justice Jain expressly endorses this view and extends its logic to the present case. The approach is both doctrinally sound and sociologically realistic: victims and their companions, especially in urban local train networks, will invariably prioritise medical assistance over procedural reporting.

2. Reliance on Basir Khan v. Union of India

The Bombay High Court’s own earlier decision in Shri Basir Khan v. Union of India (First Appeal No. 779 of 2018, decided on 8 January 2025) had already rejected a similar contention by the Railways. Although the detailed reasoning of Basir Khan is not reproduced in this judgment, it is clear that:

The Court had previously held that non‑reporting of an accident to the Station Master cannot, by itself, be fatal to a claim if other reliable evidence exists.

By expressly referring to Basir Khan, Justice Jain reinforces intra‑court consistency and signals to the Tribunal that this line of reasoning is now settled at the High Court level.

3. Expectation from police and hospital authorities

The Court goes a step further (para 13) and observes that in such cases:

“the police and other authorities at K.E.M. hospital should have guided the appellants to report the incident to the Station Master.”

This comment:

Shifts part of the institutional responsibility to the State machinery (police, hospital staff) to facilitate compliance with reporting protocols.
Undercuts the moral basis for the Railways to rely on procedural lapses as a defence when the State apparatus itself fails to guide traumatized claimants.

F. Proving Bona Fide Passenger Status through Companion’s Testimony

1. The evidence

To prove that Jaideep was a bona fide passenger (i.e., lawfully travelling with a valid ticket), the appellants relied on:

Statement of Vivek Tukral (2008): On 6 September 2008 itself, he told the police that each of the group had purchased a railway ticket to go for Ganesh darshan at Lalbaug.
Testimony of Umesh Sanas (2014): Led before the Tribunal, reiterating that all friends had bought tickets. Crucially, in cross‑examination, the Railways did not meaningfully challenge this assertion or ask specifically for details that could impeach his credibility.

2. Application of Union of India v. Rina Devi²

The Supreme Court in Rina Devi clarified several important principles relating to railway accident compensation, including:

Once an accidental fall from a train is established and there is some evidence suggesting that the victim was travelling as a passenger, a presumption arises in favour of bona fide passenger status.
The burden then shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise or to bring the case within the exceptions under the proviso to section 124A (e.g., suicide, self‑inflicted injury, intoxication, etc.).

Justice Jain explicitly invokes Rina Devi (para 16) to conclude that the condition of a bona fide passenger was satisfied. Because:

The fall from the train was established.
There was credible, uncontroverted oral evidence that each of the friends had bought tickets.
The Railways led no convincing evidence to disprove ticket purchase or to place the case within any statutory exception.

In such circumstances, the insistence on production of a physical ticket – particularly in 2014 for a 2008 incident, where the issue was not pressed in cross‑examination – is held to be unreasonable.

3. Reliance on Hussain Bee v. Union of India³

The Karnataka High Court, in Hussain Bee, had approved the use of companion’s evidence to prove purchase of a ticket by a deceased passenger. Justice Jain cites this as parallel authority demonstrating that:

There is no absolute requirement that a claimant produce the physical ticket; oral evidence can suffice if it is consistent, credible, and unshaken in cross‑examination.

4. Procedural fairness and waiver

The Court further notes that:

The Railways did not ask, in cross‑examination, for production of the ticket nor meaningfully challenge the assertion of ticket purchase.
It is impermissible to raise this contention for the first time in appeal when it was not adequately put to the witness before the Tribunal.

This is consistent with settled principles of trial procedure: adverse inferences cannot be drawn against a witness on matters not put to them in cross‑examination, and new factual disputes cannot be introduced at the appellate stage to the prejudice of the claimant.

G. Computation of Compensation and Interest

The Court awards:

Principal: ₹4,00,000 (the amount claimed in the original application).
Interest: 6% per annum from the date of the accident (5 September 2008) until payment.
Overall cap: If the total exceeds ₹8,00,000, the claimants will receive only ₹8,00,000.

This structure reflects an attempt to reconcile:

The statutory compensation rate applicable at the time of the accident (₹4,00,000); and
The enhanced statutory amount (₹8,00,000) introduced subsequently under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules.

This approach aligns substantially with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rina Devi on the relationship between:

the applicable rate of compensation; and
interest as a measure of delayed payment.

Given that interest at 6% on ₹4,00,000 from 2008 to 2025 could slightly exceed ₹4,00,000, the cap at ₹8,00,000 ensures that the claimants are not placed in a worse position than they would be under the enhanced statutory regime, while also preventing a disproportionate increase solely due to delay.

H. Human‑Centric Reasoning and Assessment of Genuineness

A notable feature of the judgment is its explicitly human‑centric reasoning in para 14:

“Loss to parents on death of young son is unimaginable and cannot be arrived at in monetary terms and when such a tragic and untoward incident happens when son is on his way to take darshan of Lord Ganesha, normally parents would not take opportunity of such incident to make a claim under the Railways Act, 1989 and litigate for decades for paltry sum.”

The Court effectively reasons that:

The emotional and temporal cost of extended litigation over a small statutory sum makes intentional fabrication highly improbable in the absence of any suspicious circumstances.
Absent concrete indicators of fraud or mala fides, the overall narrative of the parents and their witnesses should be accepted.

Doctrinally, this is a form of commonsense inference about human conduct that complements, rather than replaces, the formal evidentiary analysis.

VI. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Har Prashad Nanda v. Union of India¹ (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

In Har Prashad Nanda (FAO No. 1779 of 2014, decided 3 July 2018), the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the Railways’ argument that a failure to inform the Station Master is fatal to a claim. It emphasized that:

In real‑life emergencies, families and companions instinctively prioritize getting medical help, not complying with formal reporting requirements.

This precedent underpins Justice Jain’s conclusion that the non‑reporting of the accident to railway authorities cannot be treated as conclusive proof against the occurrence of an “untoward incident.”

2. Shri Basir Khan v. Union of India

Though details are sparse here, the Bombay High Court in Basir Khan (First Appeal No. 779 of 2018, decided 8 January 2025) apparently rejected a similar defence by the Railways premised on non‑reporting to the Station Master.

By aligning with Basir Khan, the present judgment:

reinforces a consistent Bombay High Court line rejecting overly technical objections in such claims; and
provides clear guidance to the Tribunal to avoid repeating the same error.

3. Union of India v. Rina Devi² (Supreme Court)

Rina Devi is the leading Supreme Court authority on railway accident compensation. Among other things, it held that:

Compensation under section 124A is based on no‑fault (strict) liability, subject only to the statutory exceptions.
Once an accidental fall and prima facie passenger status are shown, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide passenger status or bring the case under an exception.
The quantum of compensation is to be determined with reference to the statutory schedule, together with appropriate interest, and harmonized with later enhancements.

Justice Jain invokes Rina Devi:

To sustain the conclusion that bona fide passenger status may be inferred from credible oral evidence of companions, even in the absence of a ticket.
To structure the quantum and interest with a cap set at the enhanced statutory amount (₹8,00,000).

4. Hussain Bee v. Union of India³ (Karnataka High Court)

In Hussain Bee (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 2799), the Karnataka High Court endorsed the practice of relying on the evidence of a companion of the deceased to prove purchase of a ticket. This case is cited to affirm:

That direct documentary proof of ticket purchase is not the only mode of proof; credible oral evidence is sufficient.

The present judgment harmonizes these High Court decisions with Supreme Court authority, creating a coherent framework for proving bona fide passenger status across jurisdictions.

VII. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

1. “Untoward Incident”

Under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, “untoward incident” includes, inter alia, the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If death or injury results from such an incident, section 124A obliges the Railways to pay compensation, unless a narrow set of exceptions applies.

2. Bona Fide Passenger

A "bona fide passenger" is someone who is:

lawfully travelling on the train; and
has purchased a valid ticket or pass for the journey.

In practice, courts often infer bona fide passenger status from:

the presence of the body on or near railway tracks consistent with a fall;
oral evidence of companions or family that a ticket was purchased; and
any corroborative circumstantial or documentary material.

3. Beneficial (Welfare) Legislation

A “beneficial” or “welfare” statute is one enacted to protect or benefit a vulnerable class – here, railway passengers and their dependants. Courts interpret such statutes:

in favour of the beneficiaries where the language permits more than one interpretation; and
by avoiding unduly technical or narrow readings that would defeat the legislative purpose of providing social security–type compensation.

4. Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence consists of facts from which the main fact in issue can be logically inferred – for example:

location of the body;
nature of the injuries (e.g., head injury consistent with a fall);
contemporaneous statements to police and doctors; and
official panchnamas and investigation reports.

Courts routinely accept circumstantial evidence, especially when direct evidence is unavailable, provided the circumstances form a coherent and credible chain pointing to the conclusion in question.

5. Inquest Panchnama

An inquest panchnama is a document prepared by police (with independent witnesses) when a death occurs under suspicious or unnatural circumstances. It records:

the condition and location of the body;
visible injuries; and
preliminary observations about the cause and manner of death.

In compensation proceedings, it is often a vital early record shedding light on how the death occurred.

6. Dying Declaration (by Analogy)

A dying declaration is a statement made by a person about the cause of their death or circumstances of the transaction leading to death, recorded when they are in expectation of death. Under the Indian Evidence Act, such statements can be admitted in criminal trials even though they are hearsay.

In this judgment, the Court uses the principle underlying dying declarations – that people at or near death, or soon after a traumatic event, are more likely to speak truthfully – to justify giving high weight to first‑instance statements made soon after the accident.

7. Standard of Proof: Preponderance of Probabilities

In civil and compensation matters, the standard is not “beyond reasonable doubt” (as in criminal trials) but:

whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not to be true in light of all the evidence.

This lower standard, coupled with the beneficial nature of the legislation, supports the acceptance of well‑supported circumstantial and oral evidence in cases like this.

VIII. Impact and Future Significance

1. Curtailing overly technical dismissals by the Railway Claims Tribunal

A recurring problem in railway accident litigation has been the Tribunal’s tendency to:

treat the absence of a Station Master’s report or “Passenger Accident Memo” as conclusive against claimants; and
insist on physical production of tickets years after the incident.

This judgment, read with Basir Khan, sends a clear message:

Non‑reporting to Station Master is neither necessary nor sufficient to decide whether an accident occurred; tribunals must look at the totality of evidence.
Oral evidence of companions can prove ticket purchase and bona fide passenger status; rigid insistence on the physical ticket is unwarranted, particularly where the Railways fail to put the issue squarely in cross‑examination.

2. Strengthening reliance on first‑instance and hospital/police records

The judgment elevates the importance of:

inquest panchnamas;
hospital admission and post‑mortem records; and
statements recorded by police at hospitals immediately after an incident.

Future claimants can rely heavily on such documents to fill gaps created by missing railway records, especially in chaotic metropolitan contexts where immediate reporting to railway officials may be unrealistic.

3. Institutional responsibility of State actors

By observing that police and hospital authorities should guide victims’ families to notify the Station Master, the Court indirectly:

encourages the development of standard operating procedures by GRP, RPF, and hospital police for handling railway accident cases;
helps build a coordinated information system between hospitals, police, and the Railways, reducing future evidentiary disputes.

4. Harmonizing with national jurisprudence

The judgment brings Bombay High Court practice into tight alignment with:

the Supreme Court’s position in Rina Devi; and
persuasive decisions of other High Courts such as Punjab & Haryana (Har Prashad Nanda) and Karnataka (Hussain Bee).

This inter‑jurisdictional consistency is particularly valuable for a central subject like railways, where accidents frequently occur across State lines and where uniform standards for compensation claims are desirable.

5. Practical advice to litigants and practitioners

For claimants and counsel, the judgment suggests several practical strategies:

Secure and produce all early records – inquest panchnamas, hospital records, post‑mortem reports, and police statements.
Lead evidence of companions or eyewitnesses who can speak to ticket purchase and the manner of the accident.
Emphasize the beneficial nature of the legislation and the Supreme Court’s presumptions in favour of victims.
Resist attempts by the Railways to rely solely on absence of internal documentation as proof that no accident occurred.

IX. Conclusion

Shri Dhondu Sakharam Tambe & Anr. v. Union of India is an important reaffirmation of the principle that compensation under the Railways Act must not be denied on narrow technicalities or on the mere absence of internal railway records.

The judgment establishes and clarifies that:

Non‑reporting of an accident to the Station Master is not, by itself, fatal to a claim; tribunals must look to the full body of circumstantial, documentary, and oral evidence.
First‑instance statements given to police and doctors, inquest panchnamas, and hospital records are powerful tools to prove the occurrence of an “untoward incident”.
Bona fide passenger status can be established through credible oral testimony of companions; strict insistence on the physical ticket, especially years after the event, is unwarranted and contrary to the spirit of Rina Devi.
The Railways Act is a beneficial statute, requiring courts to adopt a liberal, humane approach to evidence, especially where there is no indication of fraud.

By setting aside the Tribunal’s order and granting compensation (with interest and an appropriate cap), the Court not only does justice in an individual case – it also lays down practical, precedent‑based guidance likely to shape the future adjudication of railway accident claims. The decision strengthens the protective mantle of the Railways Act for victims and their families, ensuring that procedural lapses and missing railway forms do not eclipse substantive truth and genuine entitlement.

Notes:
1. Har Prashad Nanda v. Union of India, FAO No. 1779 of 2014, decided on 3 July 2018 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).
2. Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.
3. Hussain Bee v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 2799.