Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Dharmadas Kalidas Kapdi Father Of Decd on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3146 of 2023
================================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
DHARMADAS KALIDAS KAPDI FATHER OF DECD & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing the impugned judgment and order passed in Case No.OA (IIU)/ADI/2018/0070 by learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. P.J. Mehta for the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under;
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined
3.1. According to the applicant, deceased-Keyur Dharamdas Kapadi was travelling from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad on 02.03.2018 with a railway ticket in Train No.19016 Saushstra Express. During the course of journey on 03.03.2018, when the train reached near Maninagar Railway Station, deceased realized that he has left Ahmedabad Station and in trying to get down from a running train, because of jerk and jolt, deceased lost his balance and fell down accidentally. Due to which, he was dragged with the train and sustained multiple crushed injuries resulting into his death. Railway ticket was received from the Police Authority. Appellant herein contested the claim petition by filing Written Statement and denied the contention that incident does not come within the purview of 'untoward incident' as defined in the Act. As the incident falls within the exception of Section 124-A(b), the Railway Authorities cannot be saddled with the liability. Issues were framed by learned Tribunal. Applicant No.1-Dharamdas Kalidas Kapadi filed Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by appellant- Railway Authorities. Railway Authorities except filing Written Statement did not lead any oral evidence in support of their contention. The Railway Authorities filed DRM report only. After considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal allowed application and directed the Railway Authorities to pay Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation with interest @ 9% from the date of incident till date.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, appellant-Railway Authorities have filed the present First Appeal before this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased was travelling without a valid ticket from Ahmedabad Railway Station to Maninagar Railway Station. Deceased was having a valid ticket of journey from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad Railway Station only. The narration of the incident as mentioned in the application, clearly indicates that incident is not an Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined untoward incident arising out of a running train but is a case of self-inflicted injury and therefore, the case is outside the purview of Section 124A of the Act. It is submitted that it is the case of the claimant that as deceased realized that he has left Ahmedabad Railway Station and in trying to deboard from a running train near Maninagar Railway Station, he fell down and received serious injuries. Therefore, considering facts, Railway Authorities are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants. It is further contended that the father of deceased has given a statement before GPR that incident occurred when his son was trying to deboard from a running train dashed with another train near Maninagar Railway Station. However, the said statement has not been properly appreciated by learned Tribunal and wrongly held Railway Authorities liable for paying compensation. It is further submitted that Section 123(c) of the Act which defines 'untoward incident'. As per said Section, the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would amount to an untoward incident. However, in Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined the present case, because of the self-negligence on the part of deceased, who tried to deboard from a running train, fell down and sustained serious injuries resulting into his death. Deceased himself was negligent in the occurrence of incident and therefore, the Railways Authorities cannot be held liable for paying any compensation. The applicant No.1-father of deceased was cross-examined by the Railways Authorities and from such cross-examination, it can be assumed that the injury is a self-inflicted injury and not an untoward incident as alleged. DRM report which is placed on record, has also been relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant and it is submitted that the said report also indicates that the incident has occurred because of the self-negligence on the part of deceased.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimant-respondent has supported the judgment and award and submitted that deceased-Keyur Dharamdas Kapadi started his journey from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad with a valid railway travelling ticket Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined bearing No.27548423 in a train bearing No.19016-Porbandar Mumbai Central Saurashtra Express. As deceased realized that the train has already left Ahmedabad Station, in trying to get down near the next Station, he reached near the door of the train, however due to sudden jerk and jolt due to heavy rush in the train, deceased lost his balance and accidentally, fell down from a running train near A.M. No.491/23 near Maninagar Railway Station. The incident has occurred on 03.03.2018 which is an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. It is further submitted that the inquiry was conducted by learned Railway Authorities almost after three months i.e. on 27.06.2018 and except DRM Report, Railway Authorities have not led any oral evidence to negate the case of the applicant. It is further submitted that the happening of the incident is not under challenge. In support of the contentions, learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon the decisions in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Versus General manager, South-East Central Railway reported in 2018 ACJ 1460 and Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527.
5.1. It is further contended that falling down of a bonafide passenger travelling with a valid ticket while trying to board a train is covered under the provisions of Act and the Railways Authorities are bound to compensate the applicants. It is further contended that when the case comes within the purview of Railways Act, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault in the happening of the incident. It is further contended that when the Railways Authorities conducted no investigation immediately after the accident, it amounts to breach of Rule No.7 and dismissal of the claim on such delayed investigation would vitiate the purpose of the benevolent intention of the legislature. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572.
6. I have considered rival submissions made by learned Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined advocates for the parties and also perused paper-book which is on record. The challenge in the present appeal is whether the incident which has occurred on 03.03.2018 near Maninagar Railway Station amounts to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act or the case falls within the exception to Section 124A(b) of the Act, which exonerates the Railway Authorities from paying any compensation in the cases of self inflicted injuries. It appears from the record that on the date of incident, in the morning hours, deceased while travelling in a train with a valid ticket to travel from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad forgot to deboard the train at Ahmedabad Railway Station. When deceased realized such mistake, he tried to deboard the train at the next station, however he fell down from a running train due to sudden jerk due to heavy rush in the train, which resulted into grievous crushed injuries and due to such injuries, deceased succumbed. The DRM Report which has been heavily relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant, If the same is perused, it appears that the undisputed fact coming out Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined from DRM report is that the deceased was having a valid railway ticket to travel from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad. Examination-in-chief-affidavit of the father of deceased indicates the narration of the happening of the incident. However, except general cross-examination of the claimant, Railway Authorities have failed to put any contrary case in the cross-examination. The Railways Authorities also did not lead any oral deposition. The appellant herein could not place on record any evidence either oral or documentary to establish their case of self-inflicted injury sustained to deceased. To establish a case of self inflicted injury, the intention of the deceased has to be pleaded as well as proved, which can weigh learned Tribunal to hold that Railway Authorities are not liable for paying compensation to the claimants as the passenger dies or suffers injuries due to self-inflicted injury. Deceased, in the present case, remained idle for not getting down at the Ahmedabad Railway Station up to which he was holding a valid travelling railway ticket. Merely because, claimant remained negligent in Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined any action of deboarding the train, it would never mean that the intention of the deceased was to inflict self-injuries upon himself. To prove a self-inflicted injury, it is for the Railway Authorities to establish beyond any doubt that there was an intention on the part of the victim / injured to receive self- inflicted injury.
7. In the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi (supra), in paragraph No.25 of the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue of self-inflicted injury. The paragraph No.25 is reproduced as under;
"25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of "self- inflicted injury" would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on "no fault theory". We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunil Kumar 37 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on "no fault theory" under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an "untoward incident" entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor."
8. Undisputedly, deceased was holding a valid travelling Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined ticket from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad, hence, deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling with a valid pass or ticket as defined Sub-section (29) of Section 2 of the Act. In the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Anr. (supra), the issue cropped up before the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the investigation of the accident carried out by Railway Authorities after an inordinate delay of 4 years of the occurrence of the incident. As Railway Authorities failed to inquire as mandated by Rules after a long period of time, claimants were held entitled to the compensation payable under Section 124A of the Act. In the present case, Railway Authorities conducted the inquiry on 27.06.2018 after a period of three months from the date of occurrence of the incident. It is worth to observe that merely by producing DMR Report, it cannot be presumed that the onus which was shifted on the Railway Authorities is duly discharged. DRM Report is to facilitate the highest Authorities to ascertain as to how and in what manner, the incident has Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined occurred. It is not a conclusive piece of evidence in absence of any supportive oral deposition that deceased / victim / injured person was either not a bonafide passenger or the incident which has occurred falls within the proviso to Section 124A of the Act.
10. In the background of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and learned Tribunal has arrived at its findings after considering a vital fact that Railway Authorities have failed to discharge their burden of proving the defence of a self-inflicted injury. Resultantly, First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
11. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal / Court.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:16:45 IST 2025