Gujarat High Court
Manasukhbhai Lakhamanbhai Khanapara vs Union Of India on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2375 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
MANASUKHBHAI LAKHAMANBHAI KHANAPARA & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ('the Act', hereinafter) challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('the Tribunal', hereinafter) in OA (IIU)/ADI/2022/0066, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim filed by the present appellant-claimant on the ground that the case falls under the proviso to Section 124-A(ii) of the Act, i.e., 'self-inflicted injury'.
2 The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who was travelling from Ahmedabad to Keshod in Train No. 22957, Ahmedabad-Veraval Somnath SF Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Express. It was the case of the appellant that the deceased was unable to de-board the train at his destination station at Keshod and, having over- travelled, was standing near the entrance gate of the compartment. Owing to a sudden jerk and jolt of the train and the heavy rush and push of passengers in the passage of the compartment, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train at Maliya Hatina Station between KM 154/6 and 154/8, sustained multiple grievous injuries on various parts of his body, and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot.
2.1 The respondent-original defendant, however, contended before the learned Tribunal that the deceased attempted to de-board Train No.22957 from the off-side while it was in motion, and therefore the alleged incident occurred due to his own self-inflicted and criminal act, amounting to severe gross negligence with full knowledge of the consequences. It was therefore urged that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation.
2.2 The learned Tribunal, upon evaluating the evidence on record, accepted the defence and dismissed the claim petition, which dismissal is Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval for the appellants and the learned advocate Mr.Sushil Shukla for the defendant.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Raval submits that the deceased had no premeditated plan on the date of the incident. He did not leave his home with an intention to fall from the train at the place of the untoward incident, nor to create any entitlement for his legal heirs to claim compensation in exchange for his death. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Raval that the act was entirely unintentional and, at the highest, the deceased had merely over-travelled and accidentally fallen from the train, which resulted in his death. The deceased was dragged by the moving train and sustained multiple crushed injuries on different parts of his body. The incident, therefore, is nothing but an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(ii) of the Act, entitling the appellants to compensation.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval further submits that appellant No.1 had filed an affidavit before the learned Tribunal, candidly stating the entire sequence of events on oath. It was stated Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined therein that the deceased, who was the son of appellant No.1, was travelling from Ahmedabad to Keshod with a valid and proper railway travelling ticket. On 05.07.2022, when the train had already left Keshod Railway Station, his destination, the deceased informed the witness telephonically that due to a sudden jerk and jolt of the train, he had fallen down.
4.2 It is further submitted that even assuming, for the sake of argument, the plea of the respondent that the deceased had attempted to de-board the train from the off-side and sustained grievous injuries, such act by itself cannot be construed as reflecting any intention on the part of the deceased to cause self- inflicted injury. Hence, the conclusion reached by the learned Tribunal is erroneous.
4.3 It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the DRM report produced by the respondent, which clearly indicates that the deceased fell from the train while attempting to de-board it. It is submitted that, at the highest, the act of the deceased may be termed as rash, negligent, or imprudent, but it cannot by any stretch be construed as a criminal act so as to fall within the exemption Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined clause contemplated under the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. Raval submits that Section 124A is founded on the principle of no-fault liability or strict liability, and therefore compensation cannot be denied on the ground of negligence of the victim, as negligence is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of fastening liability under the said provision.
4.4 It is further submitted that once the case does not fall within any of the exceptions carved out under the proviso to Section 124A, the statutory liability of the Railways to pay compensation automatically comes into operation. Considering that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, the claim cannot be rejected on the basis of alleged negligence of the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Raval therefore submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in dismissing the claim, and accordingly the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal requires to be allowed.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shukla submits that, as per the DRM report, it stands established that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that he attempted to de-board the running train, which Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined amounts to gross negligence and would constitute a criminal act. Therefore, the case squarely falls within the proviso to Section 124A of the Act as a case of self-inflicted injury. In this background, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, learned advocate Mr. Shukla prays for dismissal of the present first appeal.
6 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal as well as the record produced along with the first appeal, it emerges that, as per Exhibit A-1, an unknown person reported at 06:40 hours on 05.07.2022 that one person was lying on Line No.3 in a cut-off condition. Pointmen Rakeshkumar and Bhaveshkumar were deputed to the spot and they informed that one person had been cut off by a train and the body was lying in two pieces. The said Pointman informed the Station Master, Maliya, and a telephone vardhi was recorded, which is reflected in the station diary entry of accidental death produced at Exhibit 1A/4.
6.1 As per the Accidental Death Case entry, it was reported that the deceased accidentally fell down while getting down from the train, and the name of the informer is mentioned as Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Brahmmanandsing Ramsing, Station Master. The inquest panchnama at Exhibit A-6 shows that the deceased was identified as Himanshu Mansukhbhai Khanpara, the younger brother of Prabhudash Laxmidas Khanpara, who was present during the inquest. It is further recorded that the waist portion of the body was severed, the right thigh was half cut, and abrasion marks were found on the legs. The postmortem report records the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock due to multiple organ injuries in a railway accident.
6.2 The DRM report produced by the respondent suggests that the deceased attempted to de-board the running train and sustained fatal injuries. The statement of the father recorded by the DRM on 19.10.2022 indicates that the deceased was travelling for an interview by the Ahmedabad-Somnath Express, had over-travelled beyond his destination Keshod, and informed his father telephonically that he had slept and missed the station, and would therefore alight at the next station, Maliya Hatina.
6.3 It thus emerges that the deceased had over-travelled and was waiting to get down at Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Maliya Hatina. At that time, he appears to have fallen down along with his luggage, which was also found on the railway track. The investigating papers of the RPF suggest that the deceased intended to return to Keshod by boarding another train (No.09522) standing on the opposite platform, and for that purpose attempted to de-board the running train with his luggage. The photographs of the site reveal that the speed of the train was considerable, since the body was found severed into two parts at a distance of about five sleepers between the scattered portions.
7 In this background, the moot question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim by holding that the case would fall under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 or not.
8 To determine the aforesaid question, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jameela v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"5. Against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the Railways preferred an appeal (FAFO No. 277 of 1999) before the Lucknow Bench of the Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Allahabad High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and order dated 6-11-2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order.
6. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Railways on the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act which provides that no compensation will be payable under that section by the Railway Administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him, (b) self-inflicted injury, or (c) his own criminal act. A reference was also made to Section 154 of the Act which provides that if any person does any act in a rash and negligent manner, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon any Railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. It was further contended on behalf of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. (It needs to be pointed out that this contention could only be based on speculation, as admittedly there was no eyewitness to the accident.) The High Court accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Railways and allowed the appeal observing as follows:
"On the basis of the law and facts indicated by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the victim is to be blamed for the incident being negligent and therefore this case is not covered by the definition of untoward incident. However, so far as the compensation is Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124-A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station (sic) going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death."
(emphasis added)
7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act."
9 Considering the above decision, it is undisputed that the defendant has failed to rebut the claim of the claimant regarding the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger and the fact that he sustained fatal injuries while deboarding from the train. At the most, the act may amount to negligence in the Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined process of deboarding; however, such negligence cannot be attributed to a 'criminal act' so as to fall within the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. Once the case does not fall under the proviso, the principle of strict liability of the Railways would come into play. The decision relied upon by the learned Tribunal in Pravinbhai Ishwarbhai Waghela v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 3 GCD 2499, if examined, would reflect an entirely different factual scenario. In that case, the appellant had boarded a particular train for which he had purchased a valid ticket. That train came to a halt while passing through the Kankariya Railway Yard. As the appellant was in a hurry to reach home, he noticed an intercity train passing by and, despite knowing that the said train was in motion and that he did not hold a valid ticket for it, attempted to deboard the stationary train to board the moving intercity train. In that background, this Court held that the negligence was not ordinary negligence but amounted to criminal negligence, thereby attracting Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and do not fall within the parameters of the aforesaid judgment.
10. In the instant case, even if the version of the Railways is accepted, the deceased could not alight at Keshod Railway Station as he had fallen asleep for Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined a short while, and when he attempted to deboard at the next station, i.e., Maliya Hatina Railway Station, from the off-side, such act, at the highest, may amount to negligence, rash or imprudent or criminal act; however, the deceased cannot be denied entitlement to compensation on that ground.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the appellants-claimants requested that interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident be granted in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 which has been upheld in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410 pursuant to which circulars have been issued by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, dated 04.08.2023.
12. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shukla submitted that at the most, the appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5%, which is the prevailing rate as on date.
13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates, in the opinion of this Court, as per the circulars issued by the Tribunal itself, the rate of interest has been fixed at 9% in view of the judgment in Reena Devi (supra). Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2375/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident.
14. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment warrants interference and is required to be set aside. As the case does not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 124A of the Act, the liability of the Railways stands attracted, and the principle of strict liability under Section 124A would apply. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000/- in terms of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The defendant is directed to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident till realization, in favour of the claimants. The claimants shall open a savings account in a Bank nearest to their residence, and upon furnishing the account details along with a copy of their Aadhar Card, the Railway Administration shall disburse the amount in favour of the claimants within a period of eight weeks from today.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:42:25 IST 2025