Gujarat High Court
Simaben Ajaybhai Pandit vs Union Of India on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1579 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
SIMABEN AJAYBHAI PANDIT & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS REETA CHANDARANA(3023) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 19/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the claimants
under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
challenging the impugned judgment and award passed in Case
No.OA0330/2016 by learned Member (Judicial), Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Branch.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.J. Mehta for the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
3. The brief facts of the case are as under;
3.1. Claimants filed Claim Petition against the Railway
Authorities for an untoward incident which occurred on
28.10.2016. As per the case of claimants, deceased-Ajaybhai
Shankarlal Pandit was travelling from Vadodara to Ahmedabad
in a passenger train with a valid ticket in a general compartment
on 28.10.2016. Because of heavy rush in the train on the date of
accident, deceased was standing near the door of the coach and
because of jerk and jolt in the running rain, deceased lost his
balance and accidentally fell down from the running train.
Deceased sustained serious crushed injuries and died on the
spot. The dead body was lying on the track and the Loco Pilot of
Train No.19215, Mumbai Central-Porbandar Saurashtra Express
informed on-duty Station Superintendent, Kankaria Railway
Station who in turn informed the same to the Station Master,
Ahmedabad Railway Station. Claimants filed claim application
under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest. Respondent-
railway administration contested the claim application by filing
Written Statement and also submitted DMR report and denied
the allegations of the claimants. Claimants produced certified
copies of railway ticket for the journey from Ahmedabad to
Vadodara, inquest panchnama, post mortem report and other
documentary evidences in support of the claim application.
3.2. On the other hand, railway-administration examined
Smt. Jayshree Pillai, Station Superintendent-Kankariya
(South Cabin), Shri Rajendra Kashyap, Loco Pilot of Train
No.19215, Saurashtra Express in support of their
contentions. After considering the evidence on record,
learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Branch dismissed the claim application on the
ground of wanting of valid ticket.
3.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
judgment and award, claimants-appellants have filled the
present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that
deceased was travelling from Vadodara to Ahmedabad on
28.10.2016. Deceased was having a valid ticket for such
journey. As the train was overcrowded and deceased was
standing near the door, because of heavy rush in the
compartment, deceased fell down from the running train
because of jerk and jolt and was cut into two pieces. Claim
Petition came to be filed which was rejected by the learned
Tribunal as the railway authorities did not find valid ticket
near the dead body of deceased. From the evidence adduced
by the railway authorities, the happening of the accident is
not disputed by railway authorities. Even as per the oral
deposition of Smt. Jayshree Pillai and the affidavit of Shri
Rajendra Kashyap, the happening of an untoward incident is
established. It is further contended that the widow of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
deceased was examined by filing an affidavit, however,
railway authorities did not cross-examine claimants and the
statement of the widow of deceased has gone unchallenged.
A reliance is placed upon a decision in the case of Union of
India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572. It is
further contended that the initial burden of proving the
untoward incident is established by the claimants by filing an
affidavit of relevant facts. Once the affidavit is placed on
record, the burden would shift upon the opponents.
5. It is the contention of the respondent-railway
administration that ticket produced by applicants bearing
Ticket No.K-69172756 was for the journey from
Ahmedabad to Vadodara and not for the journey from
Vadodara to Ahmedabad. It is also contended by railway
administration that since the deceased was travelling without
ticket he would not be termed as a bonafide passenger
travelling in the train. The alleged accident has occurred due
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
to own negligence of deceased. The deceased has expired
due to his own negligent act. Learned Tribunal has rightly
rejected the claim application after appreciation of evidence.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocate for the appellants and also perused the
record placed on record along with memo of appeal. The
undisputed fact which is culled out from the record is that on
28.10.2016, deceased fell down from a running train which
was proceeding from Vadodara to Ahmedabad. The
panchnama of the place of incident which has been relied
upon by railway administration also indicates that deceased
died due to ran over by a train. The journey ticket from
Ahmedabad to Vadodara dated 27.10.2016 is placed on
record and on such evidence, the contention of claimants
was that when deceased had a valid travelling ticket of
Ahmedabad to Vadodara, deceased could not have travelled
without ticket from Vadodara to Ahmedabad. Even during
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
the journey, had the deceased been found without ticket, the
Travelling Ticket Examiner would have charged fine and it
would have been reflected in the record of Railway
Authorities but nothing of that sort has come on record, and
therefore, a presumption can be drawn that deceased was
travelling with a valid ticket. The claim application was
dismissed only on the ground that no valid ticket was found
near the dead body of deceased. An issue of a passenger
travelling in a train without a ticket is no more res integra in
the case of Union of India (supra). In the said decision, it
has been held in paragraph Nos.26 to 29 that mere presence
of a body in railway premises will not be conclusive to hold
that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which
claim for compensation could be maintained. Also, mere
absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not
negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Once
the initial burden has been discharged by claimants by filing
an affidavit of relevant facts, the burden will tilt on railways
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
to establish that the injured or deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. Paragraph Nos.26 to 27 of the said judgment are
reproduced as under;
26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As
noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for
death or injury of a 'passenger'. In Raj Kumari referring to the
scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling
without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the Railway
Administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide
passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge
whether ticket was issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar
provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an
inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway
premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to
maintain a claim for compensation. However, the Delhi High Court
in Gurcharan Singh held that initial onus to prove death or injury to
a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus
can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the
claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to
prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be
discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that
ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed
as follows : Gurcharan Singh case25, SCC OnLine Del para 4)
"4.........(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus
in my opinion always lies with the appellant claimants to show that
there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger.
Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a
particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift
on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus
of proof which has to be discharged is always on the railways and
not on the claimants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that
the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a
bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon
the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act and the Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme
Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular case, onus can be
easily discharged such as in a case where deceased may have died at
a place where he could not have otherwise been unless he was
travelling in the train and in such circumstances depending on the
facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
of the deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of
incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take
note of a judgment of a leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case
reported as Pyar Singh Vs. Union of India38 which holds that it is the
claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to
this view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the ratio of the
case of Leelamma8"
27. In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi26 the same view was taken by a
single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions of
the Evidence Act as follows : (SCC OnLine AP para 24)
"24. So, from Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is
clear that the applicants, having come to the court asserting some
facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an
untoward incident and that the death occurred while the deceased
was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with
valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an
untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his
death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same.
The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent
admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is
lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of AW 1, no evidence is
forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court may presume that
the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if
produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best
evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts,
requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is
susceptible should always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse
presumption against a person who can make available to the court,
but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims
Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed
the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal."
7. In the present case, undisputedly, claimants filed an
affidavit stating relevant facts before learned Tribunal.
However, the railway authorities neither cross-examined
claimants nor could establish that deceased was not a
bonafide passenger by any rebuttal evidence. The oral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
deposition of witnesses examined by railway authorities, is
not sufficient evidence, whereby it can be said that railway
authorities has led rebuttal evidence. What has been stated
by the witnesses of railway authorities is only the happening
of an accident and finding of a body of an unknown person
who was ran over by a running train and dead body was
lying in the railway premises. The investigation report which
was prepared by Smt. Jayshree Pillai, Station
Superintendent-KKF (South Cabin) also supports the case of
claimants that an untoward incident has happened on
28.10.2016. The other witness i.e. Shri Rajendrakumar
Shankarlal only indicates that he saw the dead body in a cut
condition lying on the railway track and he intimated about
such fact to his higher authority. The evidence led by railway
authorities is silent so far as non-finding of a valid travelling
ticket is concerned and only on bare averments made in the
written statement that no valid ticket found near the dead
body is not a rebuttal evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1579/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
8. In the background of above discussion and in view of
the settled preposition of law in the case of Union of India
(supra), learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim
application. Resultantly, First Appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment and award passed in Case
No.OA0330/2016 by learned Member (Judicial), Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Branch is hereby quashed and
set aside and the claim application of claimants is hereby
allowed accordingly. Respondent shall pay the compensation
claimed in the application with interest to the claimants
within four weeks from receipt of this order.
9. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court / Tribunal.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
