Gujarat High Court
Jugaji Dalaji Thakor vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JUGAJI DALAJI THAKOR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH B SHAH(1053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 09/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. J. Mehta for the appellant. Though served, nobody appeared for and on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the original claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Claim Application Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined No.OA/(IIU)/2017/146.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* The deceased Nitesh Jugaji Thakor was travelling on 27.7.2016 in train No.52901 from Mehsana Ahmedabad MG Passenger train with a valid journey ticket and during the journey he accidentally fell down from KM No.727/7, near crossing No.208, near Jagudan Dungri Railway Station because of sudden jerk and jolt in the train. The deceased sustained injuries due to fell down and was taken to Civil Hospital, Mehsana where he was declared as dead.
* A claim application was filed by the heirs of deceased claiming compensation. The learned tribunal dismissed the claim application for want of having a valid travelling ticket. The claim petition was resisted by the respondent by filing written Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined statement and DRM report. Issues were framed by the learned Tribunal.
* Claimant examined himself by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Respondent also examined one Harchand Bhai, gate man of LC No.208 at Jagudan railway station.
* Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rejected the claim petition for want of valid travelling ticket.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, claimant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant - original claimant submitted that the accident occurred on 27.7.2016 when the deceased was travelling in the train No.52901 from Mehsana to Ahmedabad and because Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined of the sudden jerk and jolt in the passenger train, deceased fell down from running train and sustained serious bodily injuries. The deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Mehsana where he was declared dead. He further submitted that the untoward incident is established as the respondent did not contest the application by leading cogent and convincing reasons. Even in the written statement, the respondent has admitted the happening of the accident and only on the ground of non-finding of the ticket alongwith the body of deceased, learned tribunal rejected the claim application. In support of the contentions, he has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi reported in 2018 ACJ 1441, It is contended that merely in absence of a railway ticket, claim of the claimant cannot be rejected on the ground of non-existence of a bonafide passenger. The burden would shift upon the respondent, the moment claimant discharged its burden of proving the accident by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. In the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined present case, except the production of DRM report, no convincing and cogent evidence is led by the respondent, whereby, the claim of the claimant can be rejected.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the Record & Proceedings. Undisputedly, the deceased was travelling in a train number 52901 from Mehsana and during the journey due to jerk and jolt in running train, deceased fell down and died because of the injuries. It appears from the record that the railway authority filed Written Statement and produced DRM report. The affidavit of Mr. Harchand Bhai which is filed on 21.2.2018 also discloses the fact that one unknown person was fallen down from the running train and he received such information, he reached the incident, he reached at the spot of accident and informed on duty SS - Jagudan regarding the accident. Except the production of DRM report, railway authority could not place on record any material to substantiate Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined that contention.
6. In the present case the happening of the accident from a running train is undisputed. The only question which requires under consideration is whether a claim application can be rejected for want of valid travelling ticket.
7. On perusal of the definition of `passenger', it mandates that a person should travel with a valid pass of ticket. Sub Section (29) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience.
"Passenger" - means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket."
8. A similar question was arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reena Devi (Supra), wherein the question of a person / victim having no railway ticket was addressed. In Paragraph No.17.4 of the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined under:
"17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
9. Thus on issue of a bonafide passenger, mere absence of ticket with victim of accident would not negate the claim that victim / person was not a bonafide passenger. The initial burden is always upon the claimant and the burden can be said to have been discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once such burden is discharged, the burden would shift upon the railways to establish the fact that the victim / person was not a bonafide passenger.
10. In the present case, what has weighed to the learned Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined tribunal is a fact that no railway ticket was found with the body of deceased. Such observations are ill founded in view of the decision of Reena Devi (Supra). It also appears from the record that though claimant filed examination in chief, nothing fruitful could be extracted by the railway authority in the cross examination of the claimant and the inquiry report dated 12-09-2017 which is placed on record at page number 75 of the Record and Proceedings also indicate the happening of untoward incident which is sufficient for the claimant to get a compensation from the railways.
11. In the background of the above discussion and in view of the law laid down in the case of Reena Devi (Supra), the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. Thereby, the judgment and award dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Claim Application No.OA/(IIU)/2017/146 is quashed and set aside. No Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/72/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined order as to costs.
12. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:37:54 IST 2025