Gujarat High Court

Union Of India vs Dharmadas Kalidas Kapdi Father Of Decd on 23 June, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/FA/3146/2023                                 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3146 of 2023
                       ================================================================
                                                 UNION OF INDIA
                                                     Versus
                                  DHARMADAS KALIDAS KAPDI FATHER OF DECD & ORS.
                       ================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                       MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                       ================================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                         Date : 23/06/2025
                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the claimants

under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing the impugned

judgment and order passed in Case No.OA

(IIU)/ADI/2018/0070 by learned Member (Judicial), Railway

Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for the

appellant and learned advocate Mr. P.J. Mehta for the

respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under;





                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/FA/3146/2023                       ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

                                                                                                    undefined

3.1. According to the applicant, deceased-Keyur Dharamdas

Kapadi was travelling from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad on

02.03.2018 with a railway ticket in Train No.19016 Saushstra

Express. During the course of journey on 03.03.2018, when the

train reached near Maninagar Railway Station, deceased realized

that he has left Ahmedabad Station and in trying to get down

from a running train, because of jerk and jolt, deceased lost his

balance and fell down accidentally. Due to which, he was

dragged with the train and sustained multiple crushed injuries

resulting into his death. Railway ticket was received from the

Police Authority. Appellant herein contested the claim petition

by filing Written Statement and denied the contention that

incident does not come within the purview of 'untoward

incident' as defined in the Act. As the incident falls within the

exception of Section 124-A(b), the Railway Authorities cannot

be saddled with the liability. Issues were framed by learned

Tribunal. Applicant No.1-Dharamdas Kalidas Kapadi filed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by appellant-

Railway Authorities. Railway Authorities except filing Written

Statement did not lead any oral evidence in support of their

contention. The Railway Authorities filed DRM report only.

After considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal

allowed application and directed the Railway Authorities to pay

Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation with interest @ 9% from the date of

incident till date.

3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order, appellant-Railway Authorities have filed

the present First Appeal before this Court.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the

deceased was travelling without a valid ticket from Ahmedabad

Railway Station to Maninagar Railway Station. Deceased was

having a valid ticket of journey from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad

Railway Station only. The narration of the incident as mentioned

in the application, clearly indicates that incident is not an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

untoward incident arising out of a running train but is a case of

self-inflicted injury and therefore, the case is outside the

purview of Section 124A of the Act. It is submitted that it is the

case of the claimant that as deceased realized that he has left

Ahmedabad Railway Station and in trying to deboard from a

running train near Maninagar Railway Station, he fell down and

received serious injuries. Therefore, considering facts, Railway

Authorities are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to

the claimants. It is further contended that the father of deceased

has given a statement before GPR that incident occurred when

his son was trying to deboard from a running train dashed with

another train near Maninagar Railway Station. However, the

said statement has not been properly appreciated by learned

Tribunal and wrongly held Railway Authorities liable for paying

compensation. It is further submitted that Section 123(c) of the

Act which defines 'untoward incident'. As per said Section, the

accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying

passengers would amount to an untoward incident. However, in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

the present case, because of the self-negligence on the part of

deceased, who tried to deboard from a running train, fell down

and sustained serious injuries resulting into his death. Deceased

himself was negligent in the occurrence of incident and

therefore, the Railways Authorities cannot be held liable for

paying any compensation. The applicant No.1-father of

deceased was cross-examined by the Railways Authorities and

from such cross-examination, it can be assumed that the injury

is a self-inflicted injury and not an untoward incident as alleged.

DRM report which is placed on record, has also been relied

upon by the learned advocate for the appellant and it is

submitted that the said report also indicates that the incident has

occurred because of the self-negligence on the part of deceased.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimant-respondent

has supported the judgment and award and submitted that

deceased-Keyur Dharamdas Kapadi started his journey from

Jamnagar to Ahmedabad with a valid railway travelling ticket

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

bearing No.27548423 in a train bearing No.19016-Porbandar

Mumbai Central Saurashtra Express. As deceased realized that

the train has already left Ahmedabad Station, in trying to get

down near the next Station, he reached near the door of the train,

however due to sudden jerk and jolt due to heavy rush in the

train, deceased lost his balance and accidentally, fell down from

a running train near A.M. No.491/23 near Maninagar Railway

Station. The incident has occurred on 03.03.2018 which is an

untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. It

is further submitted that the inquiry was conducted by learned

Railway Authorities almost after three months i.e. on

27.06.2018 and except DRM Report, Railway Authorities have

not led any oral evidence to negate the case of the applicant. It is

further submitted that the happening of the incident is not under

challenge. In support of the contentions, learned advocate for

the respondent has relied upon the decisions in the case of

Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Versus General manager,

South-East Central Railway reported in 2018 ACJ 1460 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors.

reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527.

5.1. It is further contended that falling down of a bonafide

passenger travelling with a valid ticket while trying to board a

train is covered under the provisions of Act and the Railways

Authorities are bound to compensate the applicants. It is further

contended that when the case comes within the purview of

Railways Act, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault in the

happening of the incident. It is further contended that when the

Railways Authorities conducted no investigation immediately

after the accident, it amounts to breach of Rule No.7 and

dismissal of the claim on such delayed investigation would

vitiate the purpose of the benevolent intention of the legislature.

Reliance is also placed upon the decision in the case of Union

of India Versus Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572.

6. I have considered rival submissions made by learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

advocates for the parties and also perused paper-book which is

on record. The challenge in the present appeal is whether the

incident which has occurred on 03.03.2018 near Maninagar

Railway Station amounts to an untoward incident as defined

under Section 123(c) of the Act or the case falls within the

exception to Section 124A(b) of the Act, which exonerates the

Railway Authorities from paying any compensation in the cases

of self inflicted injuries. It appears from the record that on the

date of incident, in the morning hours, deceased while travelling

in a train with a valid ticket to travel from Jamnagar to

Ahmedabad forgot to deboard the train at Ahmedabad Railway

Station. When deceased realized such mistake, he tried to

deboard the train at the next station, however he fell down from

a running train due to sudden jerk due to heavy rush in the train,

which resulted into grievous crushed injuries and due to such

injuries, deceased succumbed. The DRM Report which has been

heavily relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant, If the

same is perused, it appears that the undisputed fact coming out

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

from DRM report is that the deceased was having a valid

railway ticket to travel from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad.

Examination-in-chief-affidavit of the father of deceased

indicates the narration of the happening of the incident.

However, except general cross-examination of the claimant,

Railway Authorities have failed to put any contrary case in the

cross-examination. The Railways Authorities also did not lead

any oral deposition. The appellant herein could not place on

record any evidence either oral or documentary to establish their

case of self-inflicted injury sustained to deceased. To establish a

case of self inflicted injury, the intention of the deceased has to

be pleaded as well as proved, which can weigh learned Tribunal

to hold that Railway Authorities are not liable for paying

compensation to the claimants as the passenger dies or suffers

injuries due to self-inflicted injury. Deceased, in the present

case, remained idle for not getting down at the Ahmedabad

Railway Station up to which he was holding a valid travelling

railway ticket. Merely because, claimant remained negligent in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

any action of deboarding the train, it would never mean that the

intention of the deceased was to inflict self-injuries upon

himself. To prove a self-inflicted injury, it is for the Railway

Authorities to establish beyond any doubt that there was an

intention on the part of the victim / injured to receive self-

inflicted injury.

7. In the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi (supra),

in paragraph No.25 of the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

discussed the issue of self-inflicted injury. The paragraph No.25

is reproduced as under;

"25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of "self- inflicted injury" would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on "no fault theory". We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunil Kumar 37 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on "no fault theory" under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an "untoward incident" entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor."

8. Undisputedly, deceased was holding a valid travelling

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3146/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

ticket from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad, hence, deceased was a

bonafide passenger travelling with a valid pass or ticket as

defined Sub-section (29) of Section 2 of the Act. In the case

of Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Anr. (supra), the issue

cropped up before the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to

the investigation of the accident carried out by Railway

Authorities after an inordinate delay of 4 years of the

occurrence of the incident. As Railway Authorities failed to