Gujarat High Court
Kokilaben Dhanaji Thakore vs Union Of India on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 292 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
KOKILABEN DHANAJI THAKORE & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MAHESH B SHAH(1053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellants- original claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Claim Application No.OA(IIU)/ADI/2016/0166 by Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.J. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. K. M. Parikh for respondent remained absent.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under;
3.1. On 14.04.2016, deceased was travelling in a passenger train, when the train reached between KM Nos.728/3 and 728/4 between Ambaliyasan and Jagudan Railway Stations, due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train as well as due to heavy rush and push of passengers in the general compartment of the train, deceased who was standing near the gate, lost his balance and accidentally fell down from a running train. Deceased sustained grevious crushed injuries and died on the spot. Claim application was filed by legal heirs and representatives of deceased for compensation. After considering the evidence, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground of non-finding of ticket from the body of deceased or from the place of accient.
Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the imugned judgment and order, claimant-appellants have filed the present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants has contended that deceased was travelling in a passenger train on 14.04.2016. When the train reached near KM Nos.728/3 and 728/4 between Ambaliyasan and Jagudan Railway Stations, due to heavy rush and push of the passengers as well as due to jerk and jolt of the train, deceased lost his balance and fell down from a running train. The incident is undisputeldy an untoward incident as defined in the Act. The claim application was filed on 15.06.2016. It is further contended that DRM report was submitted on 10.10.2016 and Form-I which is supposed to be filled up and submitted within 24 hours of the happening of the accident was submitted late without mentioning date over the Form-I. The Rules framed by Railway Administration prescribes that Form-II has to be submitted within 30 days from the date of occurrence of accident. However, the Railway Police Force Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined wihout mentioning the date on Form-II, submitted the same. The affidavit of statement of fact filed by claimant No.1 has narrated the occurrence of accident. However, there is no effective cross- examination of claimant nullifying the claim. The affidavit of Ajitkumar, Station Master, Jagudan Railway Station and affidavit of Mukeshkumar Yadav, Trackmen at Jagudan Railway Station do not indicate any evidence, whereby the claim of the claimants could be rejected. DRM Report is not a worth piece of evidence in nullifying the claim of claimants. 5.1. In support of submissions, learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and contended that claim application cannot be rejected only on the ground that no ticket was found from the body of deceased or at the place of accident. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the appellants.
6. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined for the appellants and also perused Record and Proceedings. The incident has occurred on 14.04.2016 when deceased was travelling from Ahmedabad to Mehsana in a passenger train. When the train reached near KM Nos.728/3 and 728/4 between Ambaliyasan and Jagudan Railway Stations, deceased lost his balance due to heavy rush and push in the compartment as well as due to jerk and jolt of the train and fell down from a running train. Injuries resulted into on the spot death of deceased- Dhanaji Chhanaji Thakore. Claimants have been relying upon the affidavit of facts submitted by applicant No.1, who has stated the facts on oath. Against this, the defense of the respondent-Railway Authority is that the deceased was loitering on the railway track or was crossing the railway track, and deceased might have been run over by another train. By relying upon the DRM report dated 10.10.2016, it is the contention of the Railway Authorities that the incident is not an untoward incident and it is negligence on the part of the deceased which has resulted into his death. However, this Court cannot ignore Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the fact that the date of incident was 14.04.2016, whereas the claim application was filed on 15.06.2016. The investigation was claimed to be done by the Railway Authorities and the report dated 10.10.2016 was submitted. The report is undisputedly after the claim application was submitted. It also appears from the record that Form-I, as per Rules framed by Railway Administration, it is to be filled up and submitted within 24 hours of the occurrence of the accident, has been submitted without mentioning any date on it. The same is the position with regard to Form-II. The said Form-II also does not bear any date. By conveniently not mentioning the date of submission of Form-I and Form-II respectively, I am of the view that the Railway Authorities are trying to play smart. Not only in the present case, this Court has observed in almost every matter where Form-I and Form-II are placed on record, no dates are mentioned. This is nothing but a gross negligence, carelessness and ill-intention on the part of the Railway Administration just to avoid any adverse consequences. As per the Railway Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020, Form-I has to be submitted within 24 hours of the occurrence of the incident and Form-II has to be submitted within 30 days from the date of the incident. When the Railway Authorities are acting against the Rules, the contention that the deceased might be loitering on the railway track or might be crossing the railway track is nothing but an eyewash. No material is placed on record in support of DRM Report. No investigating officer has entered in the witness box to support DRM Report. Therefore, the said report cannot be accepted without any convincing proof.
7. Rule Nos.4, 6 and 7 of Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020 are reproduced as under:-
"Rule 4 - Duties of Station Superintendent, Guard, Conductor and Train Ticket Examiner in-charge of the train (1) If an untoward incident occurs at the station, the concerned Station Superintendent shall immediately arrange for medical assistance to the injured passengers and report such incident within twenty-four hours of the occurrence to the Divisional Security Commissioner in FORM-I. (2) If an untoward incident occurs in the mid-section, the Guard of the concerned Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined train shall inform the Station Superintendent of the nearest station who shall perform the duties referred to in sub-rule (1).
(3) In case the Guard is injured in an untoward incident, the Conductor of the concerned train shall inform the Station Superintendent of the nearest station who shall perform the duties referred to in sub-rule (1).
(4) In case both the Guard and the Conductor are injured in an untoward incident, the Train Ticket Examiner in-charge shall inform the Station Superintendent of the nearest station who shall perform the duties referred to in sub-rule (1). (5) If an untoward incident occurs in mid-section, in the absence of officers mentioned in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4), the Station Superintendent, if it comes to his notice, shall perform the duties referred to in sub-rule (1).
Rule 6 - Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force:-
(1) On receipt of information under rule 5, an officer of the Force, shall carry out the investigation and shall-
(i) Obtain copies of the inquest report, post mortem report and Jama Talashi report from the Police investigating the incident;
(ii) Obtain a copy of the report specified under clause (ii) of rule 5;
(iii) Obtain information about the untoward incident in Form-2;
(iv) Record statement of additional witnesses, if so required;
(v) Collect any other evidence required by the circumstances of the case; (2) The officer of the Force shall complete the investigation within sixty days and submit a report to the authority specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 9.
Rule 7 - Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Police:-
(1) The Police on receipt of information of an untoward incident from general public or any Railway servant including Station Superintendent, the Police shall immediately initiate investigation and prepare inquest report or injury report in accordance with the procedure laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(2) The Police upon reaching the scene of the untoward incident shall inform the nearest/concerned Station Superintendent personally or over telephone or through SMS or any effective electronic means of its presence at the scene of the incident.
The Police shall immediately take photographs of the incident along with dead body/victim at the spot along with the tracks/witness(es)/bystanders. (3) After preparation of report, as mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Police shall immediately give clearance certificate for movement of trains from the site of incident so that minimum delay is caused in restoration of train movement. (4) The Police shall prepare the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) and submit a copy of the same to Divisional Security Commissioner/Sr. DSC within 60 days from the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined date of untoward incident for onward submission to Divisional Railway Manager. (5) In the event of the Police failing to take photographs as stated under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 above, the concerned DCP shall examine why the photographs were not taken and whether any action is warranted for the lapse."
8. Coming back to the question of rejection of the claim application on the ground of want of a travelling ticket, the issue is no more res integra in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in Paragraph No.29 of the said decision, which is reproduced as under;
"29. 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. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Claim ApplicationNo.OA(IIU)/ADI/2016/0166 by Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad is Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/292/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, First Appeal is allowed. The claim application of the claimant is allowed.
10. Compensation shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants after due following procedure by way of RTGS / NEFT in favour of the claimant/s.
11. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court below forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:10 IST 2025