First Statement At Hospital Is Most Authentic, Later Changed Versions Cannot Be Believed: Bombay High Court Rejects Railway Death Compensation Claim

"This Is Not A Case Of Accidental Falling From Train But A Case Where A Person Was Knocked Down While Crossing Railway Track", Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a railway death compensation claim, holding that the deceased was not a victim of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, as the first statement made before hospital authorities on the date of the incident itself revealed that the deceased was hit by a train while crossing the railway track — not while travelling as a passenger.

Justice Jitendra Jain upheld the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 23rd February 2015 and ruled that the statement made at the earliest available opportunity before hospital authorities carries far greater authenticity than subsequent contradictory versions given to the police days later.

The appellant, Smt. Sindhu Devanand Shivdas, claimed that on 5th August 2006, her deceased husband was travelling with his friend Mr. Sachin Vijay Jewekar from Nallasopara towards Borivali when he fell from a moving train between Bhayandar and Nallasopara. The deceased was taken to a private hospital and then to K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, where he succumbed to injuries on 10th August 2006. Notably, the incident was never reported to the Station Master or the police on the date of occurrence. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the compensation claim, finding that the incident did not qualify as an "untoward incident" and the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since no ticket was recovered.

The central question before the Court was whether the death of the deceased fell within the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which is a prerequisite for claiming compensation. The appellant, represented by Mr. Mohan Rao, maintained that the deceased fell from a moving train. The respondent Union of India, represented by Mr. T.J. Pandian with Mr. Gautam Modanwal, relied on the postmortem report which recorded that the deceased was crossing the railway track when hit by a train from behind.

Justice Jain examined the crucial piece of evidence that determined the outcome — the postmortem report dated 10th August 2006, which recorded that when the deceased was brought to K.E.M. Hospital at 3:15 p.m. on 5th August 2006, Mr. Sachin Jewekar, the sole companion, informed hospital authorities that the deceased was crossing the railway track at Nallasopara Railway Station when he was hit by a running train from behind. Since the deceased was unconscious at the time, these facts could only have come from Mr. Jewekar himself.

The Court placed decisive weight on this first-in-time statement, observing, "There is no reason why the hospital authorities would state what has been stated unless Mr. Sachin Jewekar had stated so. This statement was made on 5 August 2006 itself at the first available instance to the hospital authorities and therefore it cannot be disbelieved."

The Court then contrasted this with the later documents — a police investigation report dated 8th August 2006 and an inquest panchanama dated 10th August 2006 — both prepared days after the incident, in which Mr. Jewekar changed his version to claim that the deceased had fallen from a moving train. Justice Jain refused to accept this altered account, holding that "the statement made at the first available instance would be more authentic and since the statement made before the hospital authorities was on 5 August 2006, the same should be accepted rather than what was stated later on by the same person."

The Court also drew attention to a significant factual improbability in the appellant's case. The claim was that the deceased fell between Bhayandar and Nallasopara — a considerable distance — yet the Station Authorities were never informed, and no explanation was offered as to how Mr. Jewekar managed to bring the injured and unconscious deceased from that stretch to a private hospital. The Court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the subsequent police documents could not be relied upon was therefore justified.

On the Tribunal's reasoning that Mr. Jewekar's name did not appear in the police documents, Justice Jain noted that "the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the name of Mr. Sachin Jewekar does not appear on these documents is not correct, but nothing turns on that" since the Court's confirmation of the Tribunal's order rested independently on the hospital statement made at the first available instance.

Having concluded that the incident was one of being knocked down while crossing a railway track and not an accidental fall from a train, the Court held that it squarely fell outside the definition of "untoward incident" under the Railways Act. As regards the second issue of whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the Court declined to examine it, holding that "for claiming compensation a person should not only be a bonafide passenger but also should suffer injury or death on account of an untoward incident. If any one of the condition is not satisfied the claim is to be rejected."

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Railway Claims Tribunal's order rejecting the compensation claim. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary principle that the first statement made at the earliest opportunity — particularly before medical authorities on the very date of the incident — holds greater credibility than subsequent contradictory versions, and that crossing a railway track and being hit by a train does not constitute an "untoward incident" entitling dependents to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

Date of Decision: 05th March 2026