Gujarat High Court
Divakar Rambahadur vs Union Of India on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
DIVAKAR RAMBAHADUR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH B SHAH(1053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KM PARIKH(575) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellant-
original claimant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2019
passed in Claim Application No.OA(IIU)/ADI/2018/114 by
Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal/Delhi at
RCT/Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
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;
4. The claimant-injured filed a claim application under
Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for an
untoward incident occurred due to incidentally falling down
from a running train bearing Train No.16534 named KSR
Bengaluru-Bhagat Ki Kothi Express Train on 13.03.2018 near
Palanpur Railway Station. The claim application was resisted by
Railway Authorities by filing Written Statement and production
of DRM report. Claimant filed examination-in-chief in support
of the claim application. After considering the evidence on
record, the claim application came to be dismissed by learned
Tribunal.
4.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order, claimant-appellant has filed the present
First Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
injured claimant, on 12-13/03/2018 was going to Abu Road by
purchasing a railway travelling ticket in a train named KSR
Bengaluru-Bhagat Ki Kothi Express Train. Claimant was
travelling in the general compartment of the said train. Due to
heavy rush in the general compartment of the train, claimant
was standing near the entrance gate of the general compartment
of the train. On 13.03.2018, during the course of journey, when
the train was running near Palanpur, Railway Station, because of
sudden jerk and jolt as well as due to heavy rush and push of
other passengers, claimant lost his balance and accidentally fell
down from train. Because of the untoward incident, claimant
sustained serious injuries and right leg above knee was crushed
under the wheels of the train and also sustained other multiple
injuries on right hand. Claimant was admitted in Civil Hospital,
Palanpur. The panchnama of the place of incident was drawn by
the GRP of Palanpur on 14.03.2018. The victim was treated at
Civil Hospital Ahmedabad from 13.03.2018 to 02.05.2018. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
contended that claim application came to be dismissed on a
simple ground that the injured had committed daredevil act and
also held that the victim was trying to deboard from a running
train. Reliance is only placed upon DRM report by the railway
authorities. The affidavit of examination-in-chief was submitted
by claimant and except general questions, there was no effective
cross-examination of claimant by the railway authorities. The
Railway Authorities did not lead any oral evidence. The incident
is an 'untoward incident' as contemplated under Section 123(c)
(ii) of Railway Act. In absence of any contrary material, a
presumption is required to be drawn that the victim has fallen
down from train and was also having a valid ticket. The
panchnama of the place of incident was done on the next day of
the incident and there is every chance during such period, the
ticket which might have fallen down from the pocket of victim
may not have been found at the place of incident. It is further
contended that DRM report was submitted on 05.11.2018 i.e. 8
months after the date of incident. The DRM report is not a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
conclusive piece of evidence in determining whether the
incident is an untoward incident or not. The question in the
claim application arising under the Railways Act, regarding
negligence is not to be gone into.
5.1. In support of submissions, learned advocate for the
appellant has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of
Union of India Versus Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC
6. On perusal of the Written Statement filed by Railway
Authorities against the claim application, it appears that the
claim application is resisted on the ground that the incident is
not an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c)(ii) of
the Act and the reliance is placed upon DRM report, wherein the
statement of Gateman of railway crossing and the statement of
Station Master, Palanpur have been recorded. It is also the
contention raised in the Written Statement that no valid ticket
was found with claimant on the date of incident and therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
claimant was not a bonafide passenger as defined under the Act.
It is also a contention of the respondent-Railway Authorities that
it is a case of a self-inflicted injury as defined in Section
124A(b) of the Act. The victim was negligent and careless and
was trying to deboard from a running train.
7. I have considered the submissions cavassed by the learned
advocate for the appellant and perused record and proceedings.
Claimant victim, as per the case pleaded in the claim
application, was travelling to Abu Road by KSR Bengaluru-
Bhagat Ki Kothi Express Train bearing Train No.16534 on
13.03.2018. As train reached near Palanpur Railway Station,
because of the rush and push of passengers in the general
compartment, claimant who was standing near the entrance gate
lost balance and fell down accidentally. Resultantly, claimant
was dragged with the train and he lost his right leg above knee
and also sustained injuries on right hand and other parts of the
body. Affidavit of statement of fact was submitted by claimant,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
who was cross-examined by Railway Authorities but nothing
substantial could be extracted from the cross-examination.
Railway Authorities did not lead any oral evidence and relied
upon only on DRM report dated 05.11.2018. Undisputedly,
duration between date of incident and the submission of DRM
report is nearly about 8 months. The DRM report indicates that
the Investigating Officer has mainly relied upon the
investigation done by police, statement of Gateman, Station
Superintendent, guard of the Train No.16534 and the statement
of Loco Pilot of Train No.16534. However, those witnesses
were not examined by Railway Authorities in rebutting the
contention of claimant. The Railway Authorities withheld the
material evidence during the proceedings. In absence of any
rebuttal evidence, a presumption has to be drawn that the
incident which has occurred on 13.01.2018 is an untoward
incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2). Section 123(c)
defines untoward incident. Sub-section (2) of Clause (c) of
Section 123 of the Act envisages that untoward incident means
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying
passengers. When respondents have failed to establish that
deceased had fallen down from running train while deboarding
train, a presumption is required to be drawn in favour of
claimants that incident is an untoward incident. I am of the view
that claimant has established the fact that the incident is an
untoward incident. Section 124A of the Act provides
compensation on account of untoward incident. The said
provisions are reproduced for the sake of convenience as under:-
"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.--When in the
course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether
or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of
the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has
been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to
maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway
administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed
and to that extent only of loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a
passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the
railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless
such treatment becomes
necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
The said provision mandates that when an untoward
incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any
wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway
Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been
injured, is entitled to maintain and action and recover damages
in respect thereof and Railway Administration shall be liable to
pay compensation. The exceptions are carved out in the proviso
to Section 124A. However, in the present case, since the
Railway Authorities could not prove its contention that the case
falls within the exception laid down in Section 124A, claimants
cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to recover
compensation.
8. In the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi (supra),
the question of absence or presence of a valid travelling ticket
has been discussed and decided. In paragraph No.29 of the said
decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed which is
reproduced as under;
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
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. In the background of the aforesaid facts, learned Tribunal
has committed an error by rejecting the claim application.
Accordingly, First Appeal stands allowed. The Claim
Application of the claimant being Claim Application
No.OA(IIU)/ADI/2018/114 filed by claimant is allowed.
10. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court below forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
