Gujarat High Court
Ajaykumar Dhirajlal Bilimoria vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 419 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
AJAYKUMAR DHIRAJLAL BILIMORIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant against judgment and order dated 13.10.2003 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the "Tribunal") in Claim Application No. OA 2000060 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by original applicant.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 04.01.2002, the appellant had travelled from Bilimora to Surat for attending service-related work. On the next day, i.e., on 05.01.2002, while returning from Surat to Bilimora, he boarded 40 UP Ahmedabad Passenger train in the morning. The appellant was holding a valid season pass bearing No. 537710 along with his identity card No. 839234, both valid up to 25.01.2002. As there was a heavy rush in the train, the appellant had no option but to stand near the door inside the general compartment. Due to the overcrowding and pushing of passengers, the appellant accidentally fell down from the running train near Km. 222/97, close to Amalsad Railway Station.
2.1 In the said accident, the appellant's left leg was crushed below the ankle joint under the wheels of the train, and he also sustained serious injuries on the fingers of his right hand, as well as injuries on his head and the back side of his body.
2.2 Immediately after the incident, railway personnel shifted the appellant to R.F. Daboo P.G. Hospital, Navsari, where he underwent surgery and received necessary treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. The claim application filed by the appellant Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined before the Railway Claims Tribunal was contested by the Railway Authorities, who denied the facts of the case. The appellant was examined, and he produced the original season pass as well as the police papers before the Tribunal to substantiate his claim. However, despite the evidence produced, the Tribunal, by order dated 13.10.2003, dismissed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Application No. OA 2000060, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sushil R. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
4. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that while rejecting the claim application, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rejected the claim without considering the relevant material produced before it.
4.1 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that despite sufficient evidence being available on record with regard to the occurrence of the accident, including Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined medical treatment papers and other documentary evidence, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim application.
4.2 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal, without properly considering the issues framed--particularly Issue Nos. 1 and 3--has rejected the claim application in a very cursory and flimsy manner. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sushil R. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the applicant had failed to prove his case before the Tribunal by producing cogent and reliable evidence.
5.1 Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent ,has further submitted that there were no details placed on record to establish whether the appellant was travelling as a bonafide passenger at the time of the accident, and no sufficient material was produced before the Tribunal in this regard.
5.2 Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, urges before the Court that present appeal may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed and the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal may be confirmed.
CONCLUSION
6. I have considered the facts of the case and relevant material produced on record. I have also gone through the record and proceedings vis a vis the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal.
7. Considering the submissions made by both sides, the issue involved in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal has committed any error while deciding the claim application of the appellant; whether the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction not vested in it; and whether the Tribunal has failed to consider the documentary evidence referred to in the proceedings.
8. It appears from the record that while considering the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application of the appellant. It was incumbent upon the appellant to produce cogent and reliable material to establish that he was a bonafide passenger travelling in the train at the time of the alleged incident and that he sustained injuries during the course of such travel. However, except for relying upon the medical report, no other documentary evidence was produced to Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined substantiate the claim. The burden of proving the status of a bonafide passenger lies entirely on the claimant, and in the absence of such proof, the claim cannot be entertained merely on the basis of medical records showing injuries. The medical report may establish that the appellant sustained injuries, but it does not establish that such injuries were sustained while travelling as a bonafide passenger in the train.
9. Further, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal, it appears that the tribunal has framed following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the injured was a bonafie passenger in the train?
2. Whether the injured proves the injuries sustained by him?
3. Whether the incident is covered under Section 123(C) of the Railways Act?
4. What amount of compensation, if any, the applicant is entitled to?
5. What order?
10. After framing the issues, the Tribunal, upon perusal of the documentary evidence referred to in the order, has primarily decided Issue Nos. 1 and 3, and since Issue Nos. 2 and 4 are based upon and dependent on Issue Nos. 1 and 3, the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant details, has rightly rejected the claim application. I do not find any substance in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity committed by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of any Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/419/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined merits and is, therefore, hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.10.2003 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Claim Application No. OA 2000060 is hereby confirmed. The record and proceedings, if received, shall be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 23:03:47 IST 2025