Gujarat High Court

Salitabai Jogeshwar Daniyav Katia vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 20 November, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/730/2009                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 730 of 2009


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
                       ================================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No
                                                                                              ✓
                       ================================================================
                                          SALITABAI JOGESHWAR DANIYAV KATIA
                                                         Versus
                                       UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
                       ================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR DN PANDYA(545) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ================================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                            Date : 20/11/2025
                                                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant-original

claimant under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,

1988 assailing the judgment and order dated 15.02.2008 passed

by Member, Railway Claims Tribunal-Ahmedabad Bench,

Ahmedabad in Claim Application No.OA.0400011.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.N. Pandya for the appellant

and learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

3.1. On 20.06.2003, claimant-Salitabai w/o Jogeshwar Daniyav

Katia along with her husband were going to Valsad from

Udhana. Deceased was holding free railway pass bearing

No.519894 as he was ex-Railway employee. The said pass was

valid from 08.04.2003 to 07.08.2003. The claimant as well as

deceased boarded Train No.9022-Surat Mumbai Flying Queen

from Udhana Railway Station. During the journey due to heavy

rush in the compartment and due to jerk and jolt of the train,

deceased who was standing near the door of the compartment,

fell down from running train at Platform No.2 of the Udhana

Railway Station at 05:50 a.m. Because of serious injuries

sustained due to falling down from a running train, deceased-

Jogeshwar Daniyav Katia expired on the spot. Thereafter,

claimant filed claim application claiming compensation from the

Railway Authorities. The claim application was resisted by the

Railway Authorities by filing Written Statement. Railway

Authorities denied the allegations made by the applicant in the

claim application and contended that the incident is not an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

untoward incident and the deceased was not a bona fide

passenger. After considering the evidence, the learned Member

of the Tribunal dismissed the claim application.

3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order, claimant-appellant has filed the present

appeal.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset,

contended that deceased was a retired Railway Employee and

was holding a pass bearing No.519894 on the date of accident.

Deceased along with his wife were travelling in Train No.9022-

Surat Mumbai Flying Queen from Udhana Railway Station. As

the compartment was crowded with passengers, deceased was

standing near the door of the compartment and because of a

sudden jerk and jolt of the train, the deceased fell down and died

on the spot. It is contended that learned Member of the Tribunal

was weighed with the fact that pass upon which deceased was

travelling does not indicate the endorsement of starting journey

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

and rejected the claim application. It was the duty of the

Railway Authorities to make necessary endorsement on the

railway pass at the time of issuing the same. Deceased was not

expected to verify such minute and technical issues with regard

to the endorsement of Railway Authorities.

4.1. In support of submissions, learned advocate for the

appellant has placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of

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

and Doli Rani Saha Versus Union of India reported in 2024 (0)

AIJEL-SC 73897 and contended that though the application is

for claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs but pursuant to the

Notification bearing No.GSR 1165(E) dated 22nd December

2016, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger as

on date is enhanced from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.8 lakhs and in view of

the settled position of law, claimant is entitled to Rs.8 lakhs as

total compensation.

4.2. It is further contended that even if a passenger who is not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

found with a valid travelling ticket cannot be non-suited and

cannot be denied from the legitimate claim of compensation.

The untoward incident has occurred within the railway premises

and therefore the respondent herein is required to be saddled

with the liability to pay compensation. The deceased was a bona

fide passenger and the incident is an untoward incident and

therefore the legitimate claim of the claimant ought not to have

been rejected. Except for the above, no other submissions were

made by the learned advocate for the appellant.

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

Authorities has supported the judgment and order and contended

that on the date of incident the deceased was neither having a

valid travelling ticket nor was holding a proper pass, therefore,

the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as defined in the

Railways Act. It is also contended that the deceased by standing

near the entrance gate of the compartment has remained

negligent and therefore on that ground also the claim application

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

deserves to be rejected. The Railway Authorities can only be

saddled with a liability provided the victim or injured is a bona

fide passenger holding a valid travelling ticket or a valid pass.

The travelling pass which has been relied upon by the claimant

is not a valid pass as there is no endorsement of the Railway

Authorities which would lead the pass a valid pass issued by the

Railway Authorities. Except above, no other submissions are

canvassed by learned advocate for the respondent.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned

advocates for the parties and perused Record and Proceedings. It

appears that the learned member of the tribunal has rejected the

claim application on the ground that the deceased was not

holding a valid pass and has also accepted the contention of

Railway Authorities that the pass does not bear endorsement of

Railway Authorities which would validate the pass. The

question involved in the present appeal is limited to the extent of

validity of a pass. Even if the contention of the Railway

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

Authorities is accepted that the pass is not valid in absence of an

endorsement over it issued by Railway Authorities, it would

amount to a case of a passenger travelling in a passenger train

without ticket. If the issue is considered differently, it is not the

case pleaded by Railway Authorities that the pass bearing

No.519894 is a forged or concocted pass. The only defence

which has been raised by the Railway Authorities is non-

endorsement over the pass by Railway Authorities. The railway

pass is being issued to retired employees of the railway. It is the

duty of the Railway Authorities to issue proper pass with all

necessary endorsements so that the person holding and

travelling in a passenger train by using such pass should not be

put to any technical glitches such as no endorsement of Railway

Authorities over the pass. When the Railway Authorities have

failed in endorsing proper endorsement on the railway pass, that

would not render claim application of claimants a nullity.

Merely because endorsement is not found on a railway pass

would not disentitle claimants from claiming compensation

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

under the Railways Act. There is no clear evidence led by the

Railway Authorities that the incident is not an untoward

incident. Once the affidavit stating facts is filed by the

claimants, the burden would shift upon the Railway Authorities

to rebut the same. On perusal of the deposition affidavit of the

claimant, there is no effective cross-examination on the question

of validity of the pass. In absence of any contrary evidence, the

decision in the case of Rina Devi (supra) would be squarely

applicable to the facts of the present case. In paragraph No.29

of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:-

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will 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."

7. In the case of Doli Rani Saha (supra), in paragraph

No.18, 19, 20 and 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered

the case of Rina Devi (supra) and awarded compensation to the

claimants at Rs.8 lakhs. Since the issue of enhancement of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

compensation is no more res integra in the case of Doli Rani

Saha (supra), claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakhs

from the respondent-Railway Authorities. In Paragraph Nos.18

to 21 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex has observed

as under:

18. The decision in Rina Devi (supra) holds as follows on the aspect of compensation:

"19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon [Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo [Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52] holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given."

The decision in Rina Devi (supra) has subsequently been followed in Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 and in Kamukayi and others v. Union of India and Others., 2023 SCC Online SC 642.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

19. In Rina Devi (supra), this Court held that the claimant would be entitled to interest from the date of the accident and, in case the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the grant of compensation, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. The principle which has been laid down in Rina Devi (supra) serves a salutary purpose. This was noticed in the decision in Radha Yadav (supra) where it was observed that "the idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible".

20. In 2003, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger was Rs 4,00,000, as provided under Schedule I of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, as amended by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules 1997. The compensation payable for the death of a passenger as on date is Rs 8,00,000, which was enhanced by a notification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated 22 December 2016.

21.Following the judgment in Rina Devi (surpra), from which we see no reason to depart, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation quantified at Rs 8,00,000. The compensation shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant by 30 September 2024, failing which the amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the order of this Court until payment.

8. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed. The claim application of

the claimant is allowed.

9. Respondent-Railway Authorities shall deposit the amount

of compensation at Rs.8 lakhs in favour of the claimant/s within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this

order. Once the amount of compensation is deposited, the same

shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant after following due

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/730/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

procedure through RTGS / NEFT within a period of 6 weeks

from the date of receipt of this order.