Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Bariya Manjulaben Jasvantbhai (Wife Of ... on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2078/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2078 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2078 of 2025
================================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
BARIYA MANJULABEN JASVANTBHAI (WIFE OF THE DECD.) & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellant-
original respondent under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the impugned judgment and
award passed in Case No.OA(IIU)/ADI/2023/0083 by learned
Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish Malviya for learned
advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for the appellant-original
respndent.
3. With consent of learned advocate for the appellant, this
matter is taken for final disposal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2078/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
4. The brief facts of the case are as under;
4.1. As per the claim application of the claimant, deceased has
started journey by Up train from Limkheda to Vadodara
Railway Station with a valid ticket bearing No.C 99098551. On
02.07.2023, deceased accidentally fell down from the running
train between Samlaya and Chapaner Railway Stations at KM
No.422/29-31 and sustained serious injuries. Deceased was
taken to a community Health Centre, Jarod and during the
course of treatment, he died. A claim petition was filed by
claimant under Section 16 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987
for claiming compensation. Claimant filed her affidavit in
support of her case and she was cross-examined by respondent.
The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal.
"1. Whether deceased was travelling on a valid Railway
journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in
question at the relevant time?
2. Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident
due to fall from passenger carrying train, suffered injuries
and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered
under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2078/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the
deceased as mentioned herein and are entitled to
compensation as claimed, as per Section 123(b) Railway Act,
1989?
4. to what relief?"
4.2. The Written Statement was filed by the present-appellant.
After considering the evidence, the learned Member (Judicial)
allowed the claim application and directed the appellant to pay
compensation to the claimant.
4.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, appellant has filed the present First appeal
before this Court.
5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that as
per the case of claimant, deceased purchased ticket on
01.07.2023 and the date of accident is 02.07.2023. The duration
between the purchase of the ticket and the journey date is almost
10 to 11 hours and the said contention has also been raised in
the Written Statement. It is further contended that there is no
eye-witness to the happening of the incident. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2078/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
submitted that when claimant has failed to establish that
accident has occurred during the travelling period in the train,
appellant cannot be saddled with the liability. It is further
contended that DRM Report which was placed on record
indicates that though a valid train ticket was found with the
body of deceased, in absence of any eye-witness, it cannot be
assumed that deceased had fallen down from a running train and
has expired. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed
by learned advocate for appellant.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocate for the appellant-original respondent and
perused the material placed on record. It appears from the record
that there is no dispute that deceased was having a valid ticket
for a journey from Limkheda to Vadodara Railway Station.
Ticket was purchased on 01.07.2023 and the date of incident is
02.07.2023. The only contention which has been raised by
learned advocate for the appellant that in absence of any eye-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2078/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
witness with regard to the happening of the incident, deceased
cannot be presumed to have fallen down from a running train
and therefore, incident would not fall within the definition of
untoward incident. The said contention is not supported by any
contrary evidence. As a matter of fact, the impugned judgment
indicates that respondent had opted not to adduce any oral
evidence but has relied upon DRM Report only. The fact that
claimant has filed an affidavit stating facts, has not been
rebutted by the respondent by leading cogent and convincing
evidence. A presumption can be drawn, in absence of any
contrary evidence, that deceased has fallen down from a running
train. Another aspect which is required to be considered is that
deceased was admittedly having a valid travelling train ticket to
travel from Limkheda to Vadodara Railway Station. The
incident falls within the definition of 'untoward incident'
considering the facts mentioned in the claim application and
supported by affidavit of claimant. When deceased has lost his
life by falling down from a running train, and the incident has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2078/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
taken place within the premises of railway authorities, claimant
cannot be deprived of the legitimate claim of compensation.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there
is no contrary material found from the impugned order, whereby
the findings of fact arrived at by learned Tribunal can be
disturbed by this Court. Resultantly, the present First Appeal is
meritless and the same is dismissed. Connected Civil
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal / Court.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
