Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Krishnaprakash Shashikant Singh (Son ... on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2301/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2301 of 2023
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
KRISHNAPRAKASH SHASHIKANT SINGH (SON OF DECEASED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/04/2026
ORDER
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
1. This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short "the Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2023 passed by the leaned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case No.OA (Iiu)/ADI/2016/0237, whereby the the learned Railway Tribunal allowed claim of Rs.8 lakh plus interest from the date of incident till the amount actually realized.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased wanted to go from Ankleshwar to Bharuch Railway station by DN train carrying passengers with ticket on 16.06.2016. Due to jerk of the train, the deceased fell down from the train at platform No.1 of Ankleshwar Railway Station, due to which, he sustained injuries resulting into death on the spot. In these Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:48:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2301/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined consequences, the claimants being the dependents are entitled to the compensation.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the deceased was expected to alight at Bharuch, but did not succeed due to huge rush of the passengers and later on, when the train was departed, he tried to alight and fell down from the train, due to which, he sustained injuries resulting into death on the spot. He would further submit that in that way, it would not be considered as untoward incident. Hence, present First Appeal be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents while supporting to the impugned order, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, at the outset, let refer para 17 to 20 of the impugned judgment and order, which read as under:-
"17. The contention of the Respondent regarding negligence is based on speculations. No contra evidence has been produced by the Respondent in regard to the negligence, but let's assume for a moment that the deceased fell down due to his own negligence it does not amount to criminal act of the deceased as stated in the judgment laid down by the Apex Court in case of Jameela & Others Vs Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1184 of 2003 decided on 27.08.2010 that "the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:48:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2301/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined by the Railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the रत दावा आधिकरण proviso to section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open अहमदाबाद doors of the compartment of a running train train may may be be a a negligent re act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act".
18. I have carefully perused Form Form2, Memo of Dy.SS-AKV to GRP/RPF/ AKV and cross-examination of RW/1 & RW/2. These documents reveal that the dead body of the deceased was lying between the tracks in parallel to the track at k.m.no. 315/26-28 on down line. The RW/1 stated in his affidavit that his train passed from the body which was lying at the said place, which is corroborated with the DRM report. As well as, it has been concluded in the DRM report that "मृतक के कब्जे से रेल यात्रा टिकट मिला है, लेकिन जहां उसके साथ घटना हुई उसके लिए वैध टिकट नहीं है।".
19. I have carefully perused the cross-examination of RW/1 & RW/2, in which RW/1 admitted that the incident took place at platform no.1 of & Ankleshwar station at km. 315/26-28 and RW/2 stated that km no. 315/26-28 is situated at Panoli end of Ankleshwar station. Neither the both witness disclosed that the said ticket was not valid at the place for boarding the train nor any contra evidence has been adduced which show that the said place has not been used for boarding the train with ticket, which is issued from Ankleshwar station. Hence, conclusion of the DRM report
20. Furthermore, the DRM report shows that "दिनांक 16.06.2016 को सवारी गाड़ी सं. 12951 राजधानी एक्सप्रेस के ऑन ड्यूटी चालक द्वारा Dy.SS/AKV को सूचना दी की अंकलेश्वर रेलवे स्टेशन प्लेटफॉर्म 01 के पानोली (दक्षिण) साइड डाउन ट्रेक कि.मी. सं. 315/26- 28 पर एक अज्ञात व्यक्ति की डेडबॉडी ट्रेक के पास पड़ी है जिसपर काफी प्रयास करने के बाद भी ट्रेन डेडबॉडी के ऊपर से पसार होना बताया।". Hence, I deem it proper to reproduce the ratio laid Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:48:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2301/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined down by the Hon'ble High court of Telangana at Hyderabad in case of A. Sreenivasa Rao and ors. Vs. Union of India, in CMA No. 862 of 2017, decided on 22.04.2022 and reported in 2023 ACJ 187. The Hon'ble Court has held at para 13, for same situation i.e. body lying on track, that:
"A further reference can be made to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v. A. Geetha, 2018 ACJ 941 (Kerala). Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment read as under:
"(12). The pleadings of the applicants in the original application disclose that Smt. Sandhya was travelling alone in the train. Her bag containing material things including the ticket taken by her for travelling purpose was lost. Her body was found lying in the railway track. It is pertinent to note that even though disclosure of the facts is made in the original application, the respondent has not ventured to controvert those. The respondent has also no case that any enquiry in the matter was conducted by them and the contrary was revealed to them. The only objection raised was regarding the non-pulling of the chain by co-passengers and non-production of the ticket by the claimants. The lady being a passenger not in accompaniment with any of the original applicants, it is difficult for the latter to state specifically about the incident. The attending circumstances being so, the authorities of the Railway, being in reachable space to the place of incident, are the appropriate person to conduct an enquiry and to get convinced themselves about the untoward incident rather than the original applicants, who were in a remote place at the relevant time. The authorities of the Railways cannot take advantage of their inaction to conduct an enquiry and the incapacity of the original applicants to place on record evidence supporting their claim. In the case on hand, the attending circumstances drawn out from the pleadings of the original applicants are leaning in favour of the original applicants rather than those advanced by the respondent, S Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:48:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2301/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined (13). The dictum in the decision supra rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and is extracted hereinbelow:
"(8). We have considered all the relevant inputs. To us it appears that Chapter XIII of the Railways Act reflects the vibrant compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims of untoward incidents that take place during the operation of the Railways. Even though there is no specific liability known to law on established legal principles obliging the Railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents.
An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this aspect it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2007). Rules 7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But, the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:48:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2301/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railways and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not."
6. According to this Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in passing the impugned order. The deceased was travelling from Ankleshwar to Bharuch with valid ticket. The deceased was bona fide purchaser and proceedings u/s 124A are governed by principles of preponderance and probabilities, not the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which required in criminal trial. Once foundational facts are proved, the railway is bound to give compensation to the victim.
7. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands dismissed. Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:48:05 IST 2026