Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Jaswant Madanlal Kothari His Lh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1384 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1384 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
JASWANT MADANLAL KOTHARI HIS LH & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH MALVIYA, ADVOCATE for MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant - original respondent
has challenged the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2019
passed in claim application No.OA.2016/2019 by the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish Malviya for learned
advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the appellant and learned
advocate Mr. P. J. Mehta for the respondents. Perused the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
record.
3. The facts of the case are as under:
4. On 12.7.2016, the injured J. M. Kothari was travelling from
Surat to Ahmedabad with a valid and proper railway ticket
in train No.19131 Bandra Terminas, Bhuj Express. When
the train reached at platform no.3 of Bharuch Railway
Station while getting down from the said train to change
compartment from reservation to general coach, because
of heavy rush and push of passengers, fallen down from
the said train. Because of falling down from a running train,
injured sustained severe injuries. The injured filed claim
application u/S.16 of the Railways Act, 1987 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as `the Act') which was resisted by
the respondent authorities. During the pendency of the
claim application, on 3.6.2017, the injured expired.
5. The legal heirs of deceased Kirtiben J. Kothari filed affidavit
examination in chief. Mr. Meena, Deputy Station
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Superintendent of Bharuch Railway Station been has
examined. DRM report has placed on record. Learned
Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, allowed
claim petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant - original opponent has
mainly contended that the deceased has fallen down from
the running train because of his negligence. In the DRM
report, statement of the injured Jaswantbhai Madanlal
Kothari was recorded and as per his statement, while trying
to change the coach from reservation to general, in a
running train, he fallen down and sustained injuries. It is also
contended that when the injured himself has admitted that
the incident has occurred because of his negligence, the
incident would amount to a self-inflicted injury which is
defined in Section 124(A)(B)of the Act. It is further
contended that the incident would not be termed as an
untoward incident as contemplated under section 123(C)(2)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
of the Act. It is also contended that when the Panchnama
was drawn, no ticket was found from the injured person.
During the investigation, no ticket was found from the
injured person and therefore the deceased is not a bonafide
passenger as contemplated under sub-section (29) of
section 2 of the Act. It is further pointed out that when the
deceased is found without a valid travelling ticket and more
particularly, the incident is a self-inflicted injury, Railway
Authorities cannot be saddled with the liability to pay
compensation. No other submissions are made except the
above.
7. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent - original
claimant has supported the judgment and award. He has
submitted that the incident which has occurred on 12-7-
2016 is an untoward incident because on the unfortunate
day, the deceased was travelling by train number 19131
Bandra Terminus Kutch - Bhuj Express by purchasing a valid
travelling ticket. When the train reached at platform number
3, Bharuch railway station, deceased while getting down
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
from the train to change the compartment of the train from
reservation coach to general coach, because of sudden jerk
and push of passengers in the compartment, the deceased
lost his balance and fell down from the running train at
platform number 3. Resultantly he suffered serious injuries
on his body. Deceased was admitted in Sai Shraddha Multi
Speciality Hospital, Bharuch for the treatment. During
treatment, on 3-6-2017, injured expired and the legal heirs
and representatives were brought on record. The tribunal,
while considering the application for compensation, has
taken into consideration DRM report and other evidence
such as Panchnama of the place of incident and other
relevant and material evidence and held that the incident is
an untoward incident and the deceased has fallen down
from a running train and awarded the compensation. It is
further contended that in absence of any contrary material
being shown by the learned advocate, there is no substance
in the first appeal and the first appeal needs to be
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
8. I have considered submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the respective parties and also perused
Records and Proceedings.
9. It appears from the record that on 12-07-2016, the deceased
while travelling from Surat Railway Station to Ahmedabad
boarded in train number 19131 Bandra Terminus Kutch -
Bhuj Express. When the train reached at platform number 3
of Bharuch Railway Station while changing the compartment
from reservation coach to general coach, because of sudden
jerk and push of passengers, the deceased lost balance and
fell down and sustained serious injuries. Injured was cross-
examined by the railway authorities and nothing fruitful
could be extracted from the cross-examination except
general denials. Pending the application, injured expired on
3-6-2017. The legal heirs of deceased also submitted
affidavit and narrated the same facts which are mentioned
by the injured in the claim application as well as in the
affidavit. The DRM report which has been relied upon by
learned advocate for the appellant indicates that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
investigating officer has recorded the statement of injured
and the injured has stated that while getting down from a
running train, in the process of changing the coach from
reservation coach to general coach, slipped down from the
running train and fell down on the platform. However, the
statement of injured is not produced on record. The DRM
report is not the conclusive evidence to ascertain whether
the incident is an untoward incident or not. Railway
authorities have filed the affidavit of Hazari Lal Meena,
Deputy Station Superintendent, Bharuch Railway Station. As
per his affidavit, he received an information that one
unknown person has fallen down while getting down from a
running train on platform no. 3. The affidavit also does not
reflect any other material information with regard to how
and in what manner the incident has taken place. Once the
affidavit of facts are filed by the claimants in the claim
application form, the burden would shift upon the railway
authorities to rebut the facts which are mentioned in the
affidavit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
10. In the present case, except DRM report, no other evidence is
used by railway authorities. So far as the contention of self-
inflicted injuries are concerned, it is for the appellant to
establish firstly the intention of the deceased in the
occurrence of the incident. When the appellant has failed to
prove that the intention of the applicant was to inflict his
self-inflicted injuries, the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the appellant that the injury is a self-inflicted
injury is not acceptable. So far as the question of having a
valid ticket is concerned, the issue is no more res integra in
the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi reported in 2018
ACJ 1441. Section 123(C)(2) of the Act contemplates the
meaning of untoward incident. The said provision mandates
that the accident falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passenger would mean untoward incident.
11. In the present case, the deceased has accidentally fallen
down from a train would mean to an untoward incident. The
learned Tribunal, while considering the questions raised by
the appellant, has considered the entire evidence, both oral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1384/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
as well as documentary, and found that the deceased has
fallen down from a running train and a presumption was
drawn that the deceased was having a valid ticket on the
date of incident and further held that the incident is an
untoward incident as contemplated in Section 123(C)(2) of
the Act.
12. Since no contrary material could be pointed out by the
appellant, whereby the finding of fact can be dislodged by
this Court, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as
to costs. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to
the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any,
stands vacated forthwith.
13. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil
Application will no longer survive and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
