Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Jaswant Madanlal Kothari His Lh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1384 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1384 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
JASWANT MADANLAL KOTHARI HIS LH & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH MALVIYA, ADVOCATE for MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant - original respondent has challenged the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed in claim application No.OA.2016/2019 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish Malviya for learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. P. J. Mehta for the respondents. Perused the Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined record.
3. The facts of the case are as under:
4. On 12.7.2016, the injured J. M. Kothari was travelling from Surat to Ahmedabad with a valid and proper railway ticket in train No.19131 Bandra Terminas, Bhuj Express. When the train reached at platform no.3 of Bharuch Railway Station while getting down from the said train to change compartment from reservation to general coach, because of heavy rush and push of passengers, fallen down from the said train. Because of falling down from a running train, injured sustained severe injuries. The injured filed claim application u/S.16 of the Railways Act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act') which was resisted by the respondent authorities. During the pendency of the claim application, on 3.6.2017, the injured expired.
5. The legal heirs of deceased Kirtiben J. Kothari filed affidavit examination in chief. Mr. Meena, Deputy Station Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined Superintendent of Bharuch Railway Station been has examined. DRM report has placed on record. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, allowed claim petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant - original opponent has mainly contended that the deceased has fallen down from the running train because of his negligence. In the DRM report, statement of the injured Jaswantbhai Madanlal Kothari was recorded and as per his statement, while trying to change the coach from reservation to general, in a running train, he fallen down and sustained injuries. It is also contended that when the injured himself has admitted that the incident has occurred because of his negligence, the incident would amount to a self-inflicted injury which is defined in Section 124(A)(B)of the Act. It is further contended that the incident would not be termed as an untoward incident as contemplated under section 123(C)(2) Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined of the Act. It is also contended that when the Panchnama was drawn, no ticket was found from the injured person. During the investigation, no ticket was found from the injured person and therefore the deceased is not a bonafide passenger as contemplated under sub-section (29) of section 2 of the Act. It is further pointed out that when the deceased is found without a valid travelling ticket and more particularly, the incident is a self-inflicted injury, Railway Authorities cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. No other submissions are made except the above.
7. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent - original claimant has supported the judgment and award. He has submitted that the incident which has occurred on 12-7- 2016 is an untoward incident because on the unfortunate day, the deceased was travelling by train number 19131 Bandra Terminus Kutch - Bhuj Express by purchasing a valid travelling ticket. When the train reached at platform number 3, Bharuch railway station, deceased while getting down Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined from the train to change the compartment of the train from reservation coach to general coach, because of sudden jerk and push of passengers in the compartment, the deceased lost his balance and fell down from the running train at platform number 3. Resultantly he suffered serious injuries on his body. Deceased was admitted in Sai Shraddha Multi Speciality Hospital, Bharuch for the treatment. During treatment, on 3-6-2017, injured expired and the legal heirs and representatives were brought on record. The tribunal, while considering the application for compensation, has taken into consideration DRM report and other evidence such as Panchnama of the place of incident and other relevant and material evidence and held that the incident is an untoward incident and the deceased has fallen down from a running train and awarded the compensation. It is further contended that in absence of any contrary material being shown by the learned advocate, there is no substance in the first appeal and the first appeal needs to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
8. I have considered submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused Records and Proceedings.
9. It appears from the record that on 12-07-2016, the deceased while travelling from Surat Railway Station to Ahmedabad boarded in train number 19131 Bandra Terminus Kutch - Bhuj Express. When the train reached at platform number 3 of Bharuch Railway Station while changing the compartment from reservation coach to general coach, because of sudden jerk and push of passengers, the deceased lost balance and fell down and sustained serious injuries. Injured was cross- examined by the railway authorities and nothing fruitful could be extracted from the cross-examination except general denials. Pending the application, injured expired on 3-6-2017. The legal heirs of deceased also submitted affidavit and narrated the same facts which are mentioned by the injured in the claim application as well as in the affidavit. The DRM report which has been relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant indicates that Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined investigating officer has recorded the statement of injured and the injured has stated that while getting down from a running train, in the process of changing the coach from reservation coach to general coach, slipped down from the running train and fell down on the platform. However, the statement of injured is not produced on record. The DRM report is not the conclusive evidence to ascertain whether the incident is an untoward incident or not. Railway authorities have filed the affidavit of Hazari Lal Meena, Deputy Station Superintendent, Bharuch Railway Station. As per his affidavit, he received an information that one unknown person has fallen down while getting down from a running train on platform no. 3. The affidavit also does not reflect any other material information with regard to how and in what manner the incident has taken place. Once the affidavit of facts are filed by the claimants in the claim application form, the burden would shift upon the railway authorities to rebut the facts which are mentioned in the affidavit.
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
10. In the present case, except DRM report, no other evidence is used by railway authorities. So far as the contention of self- inflicted injuries are concerned, it is for the appellant to establish firstly the intention of the deceased in the occurrence of the incident. When the appellant has failed to prove that the intention of the applicant was to inflict his self-inflicted injuries, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant that the injury is a self-inflicted injury is not acceptable. So far as the question of having a valid ticket is concerned, the issue is no more res integra in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi reported in 2018 ACJ 1441. Section 123(C)(2) of the Act contemplates the meaning of untoward incident. The said provision mandates that the accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passenger would mean untoward incident.
11. In the present case, the deceased has accidentally fallen down from a train would mean to an untoward incident. The learned Tribunal, while considering the questions raised by the appellant, has considered the entire evidence, both oral Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined as well as documentary, and found that the deceased has fallen down from a running train and a presumption was drawn that the deceased was having a valid ticket on the date of incident and further held that the incident is an untoward incident as contemplated in Section 123(C)(2) of the Act.
12. Since no contrary material could be pointed out by the appellant, whereby the finding of fact can be dislodged by this Court, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
13. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil Application will no longer survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:05:14 IST 2025