[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Shobhaben Bharatbhai Vadher vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2943 of 2024
==========================================================
SHOBHABEN BHARATBHAI VADHER & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The judgment and award dated 10.07.2024 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('the learned
Tribunal', for short) in OA (IIu) ADI / 2019 / 0015 has been
appealed by the original claimants by way of this appeal under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ('the Act',
for short).
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal
dismissed claim petition on the ground that deceased failed to
prove that he was bona fide purchaser.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased
Bharatbhai Dhanabhai Vadher, on 30.01.2018 went to Gondal
Railway Station since the relatives of the deceased were
intending to go from Gondal to Mumbai with valid ticket by
travelling in the train No.19570 Veraval-Mumbai Central
Express. The deceased went to the station to drop them at
Gondal Railway Station. As the relatives of the deceased were
carrying with them two suitcases, handbags and water bags,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
they requested deceased to help them in boarding the railway
compartment as they could not get porter near to the
compartment. When the deceased was in course of helping his
relatives to board the railway compartment, suddenly train
started and due to sudden jerk and jolt deceased lost his
balance and accidentally fell down from the train and he was
dragged with the running train and sustained multiple
grievous crushed injuries and the deceased became
unconscious. 108 ambulance services reached only to declare
him dead.
4.1 In the aforesaid factual background, the dependents of
the deceased Bharatbhai Vadher preferred an application
under Section 124(A), 125 and 123 (c)(2) of the Act seeking
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest.
4.2 Upon service, the Railway Administration contested
claim by filing written statement along with the DM report.
Apart from denying all the averments Railway contended that
deceased was boarding running train and fell down and
sustained injuries resulting into death which shows his gross
negligence, that the deceased had not purchased any platform
ticket, nor it was recovered from the deceased. It is further
contended that platform ticket is limited for visiting platform
and the same does not authorise the deceased to board any
train. Hence, it is contended that deceased could not be
considered to be 'bona fide passenger' and the accident with
the deceased would not cover under Section 123(c)(2) of the
Act and, therefore, dependents of the deceased are not
entitled to claim the compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
4.3 Learned Tribunal referred to evidence and various
judgments and was pleased to held that deceased was not
'bona fide passenger' and accident took place due to his own
negligence and, therefore, dependents are not entitled to
claim any compensation. In the result, the claim petition was
dismissed by judgment and order dated 10.07.2024.
4.4 Being aggrieved the dependents - original claimants
before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ratin Raval appearing for
the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Shukla for the Union of
India.
6. Its a case where accident is not underchallenge. It is a
case where the learned Tribunal relied upon contention of the
railway that the deceased was not bona fide passenger and he
had not kept any railway ticket and in absence thereof, he was
not authorised to board or deboard any train. In nutshell it
was case of the defendant that deceased himself was
negligent and his own negligence caused into his death and,
therefore, railway is not owing responsibility to pay the
compensation.
7. It is incontrovertible that along with the claim petition,
dependents filed the affidavit saying that deceased had
purchased platform ticket. As against this, it is a case of the
railway that no platform ticket was found either from DRM
report or inquest panchnama.
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
Rajni & Another vs. Union of India & Another reported in
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986 addressed the issue and held that
mere absence of ticket with the deceased does not negate the
claim of being bona fide passenger. It is further held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that proceedings under Section 124A
of the Act are governed by principles of preponderance and
probabilities, not the standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal trials. The relevant observations
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paras:10, 11, 12 and 13 read
as under:
"10. The Appellants case solely rests on the affidavit
dated 10.02.2020 filed before the Railway Claims
Tribunal namely the affidavit of the wife of the
deceased. She has stated in unequivocal terms that her
husband late Shri Sanjesh Kumar on the date of the
accident i.e., on 19.05.2017 was travelling from Indore
to Ujjain by passenger train no. 12485 Ranthambore
Express with ticket in second class. She has further
deposed that the ticket has been seized by the Police
Narwar, District Ujjain. She has also deposed that on
previous day night that is on 18.05.2017 she was told by
the deceased that he was going out with some work and
asked for his Aadhar Card and ID proof and thereafter
he left the house with his luggage. Before the Tribunal
as well as before the High Court the appellants had
placed reliance on Divisional Railway Manager (DRM)
note dated 23.02.2019 (R/1) to contend that Police
Station Narwar while forwarding the documents to the
railway authorities had forwarded a railway ticket
bearing no. L1027420 EX dated 19.05.2017 (Indore to
Ujjain). The copy of the said railway ticket is at
Annexure P-1 which was marked as Exhibit P-6 before
the Railway Claims Tribunal. Thus, the initial burden
which was cast on the claimants stood discharged.
Infact, the High Court while reappreciating the evidence
tendered before the Tribunal found that DRM report
dated 26.02.2019 (R/1) revealed that at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
accident, deceased was travelling in train and having
fallen from train had sustained injuries and later
succumbed to the same. In the teeth of said finding
recorded, the High Court held that it established that
the death would fall within the purview of 'untoward
incident' as defined under Section 124 (A) of the
Railways Act, 1989. However, while examining the issue
as to whether claimants had proved deceased was a
bonafide passenger, same was held in the negative on
the premise that the railway ticket was not found
alongwith the body of the deceased or alongwith the
articles found near the body of the deceased. However,
the aforesaid DRM Report dated 23.02.2019 (R/1) has
recorded a finding as under: -
"Ticket Verification: - In the documents received from
Police Station Narwar in relation to the incident of
19.05.2017, the train travel ticket no. L10274210
from Indore to Ujjain has been verified by the Chief
Booking Supervisor Indore on 19.05.2017 and it is
stated that the said ticket was issued from Indore
Station. (Document attached)."
11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of
India3, has held that the burden of proof would shift to
the Railways once, the Claimant-Appellant filed an
affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report
arising from the investigation conducted by the railway
authorities. It has been further held: -
"15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial
pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can
be seen that the primary issue is whether the
deceased was travelling on the train in question. In
Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC
572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , a two-Judge Bench of
this Court considered the question of the party on
which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the
body of the deceased is found on railway premises.
This Court held that the initial burden would be on
the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did
so, the burden would then shift to the Railways.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a
ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from
the ruling of the Court is reproduced below: (SCC p.
588, para 29) "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." (emphasis supplied)
16. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed
an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the
report arising from the investigation conducted by
the respondent, which showed that the deceased was
travelling on the train and that his death was caused
by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of
proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not
discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the
train in question was not rebutted.
17. Further, the report of the IO indicates the details
mentioned in the post-mortem report. It states that
the cause of death was due to an injury sustained on
the head and that all injuries were antemortem and
caused by "blunt force impact". It also states that
forty-eight to seventy-two hours had passed since the
time of death."]
12. Though Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the Railways has made a fervent
plea to contend that the finding recorded by the
Tribunal with regard to the suspicious circumstances of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
the railway tickets relied upon is sufficient to discard
the claim, we are not impressed by the said submission
for reasons more than one. Firstly, the initial burden
which is cast on the claimants to prove that the
deceased had travelled in the train has been discharged
by the sworn statement made by first claimant (wife of
deceased). Secondly, the High Court by relying upon the
report of DRM report (R/1) has arrived at a conclusion
that death of 1st claimants husband would fall within
the purview of expression 'untoward incident' as
defined under Section 124 (A) of the Act; Thirdly, the
railway ticket which formed part of the police report
stood unrebutted; Fourthly, the very same report also
disclosed the Chief Booking Supervisor, Indore had
verified the ticket produced alongwith the report of the
police and certified that ticket had been issued from
Indore Station. This would clearly satisfy the
requirement of the expression 'passenger' as
contemplated under Clause (ii) to Explanation to Section
124 (A) of the Act and deceased being declared as a
'passenger' travelling in the train. This view also gets
fortified by the judgment of the coordinate bench in the
case of Kamukayi and Others vs. Union of India and
Others4, whereunder it has been held: -
"9. ............................................... By the explanation
of the said section clarifying about "passenger", it
would include a person who has purchased a valid
ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on
any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a
victim of an untoward incident.
10. This Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina
Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] has
explained the burden of proof when body of a
passenger is found on railway premises. While
analysing the said issue, this Court has considered
the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Raj Kumari v. Union of India [Raj Kumari v. Union of
India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96] and the judgments of
the Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of
India [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 101] , the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India [Jetty
Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC
OnLine AP 828] and also considered the judgment of
this Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India
[Kamrunnissa v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 :
(2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 613] and in para 29 concluded as
thus : (Rina Devi case [Union of India v. Rina Devi,
(2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , SCC p.
588) "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.""(emphasis
supplied)
13. In the light of the above, we are of the considered
view that the High Court had faulted in affirming the
finding of the Railways Claims Tribunal whereunder the
claimants petition had been rejected for non-production
of a seizure memo of the ticket and for non- examination
of the investigating officer, which is and was the main
thrust of argument canvassed by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Railways. This reasoning ignores the
consistent judicial line that the absence of formal
seizure or witness examination does not, by itself,
negate bonafide travel when other material evidence
substantiate the claim. Mere technical irregularities or
lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim
under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989.
Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with liability of
railway administration for death and injury to passenger
due to accident. A Hyper technical approach which
would frustrate the object of providing relief to victims
of railway accidents should be eschewed. The insistence
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
on a formal seizure memo would amount to importing
standard of proof which normally is sought for in a
criminal trial."
9. This Court, in First Appeal No.3793 of 2025 referred to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union
of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in (2008) 9
SCC 527 to understand the object of the Railway Act. Paras:5
and 6 thereof read as under:
"5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India
Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, held
that object of the Act is for the benefit of the person for
whom the Act was made and should be given liberal
and not the strict interpretation. Section 123(c) of the
Act on its plain reading appears to be a beneficial piece
of legislation. Section 123(c) in fact widened the
benefit of untoward accident and even if, the railway is
not involved in untoward accident, the railway has
been held liable to pay compensation if a passenger
travelling in the railway suffers injury or death.
6. The benefit is found to be in inclusive definition. In
view of section 123(c)(iii), even if a person is in waiting
hall, clock room or reservation or booking office or on
any platform or any other place within the precincts of
a railway station and received injury or suffered death,
the railway is liable to pay compensation."
10. In view of above, without dwelving further into merits of
the case, since claimants have filed the affidvit claiming that
the deceased had platform ticket, it is burden upon the
railway to disprove this aspect, otherwise in view of Section
124A, 123(c)(2) and 124 the Railway is liable to pay the
compensation. As said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
aforesaid authority, hyper-technical approach which frustrates
the object of providing relief to victim of railway should be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2943/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
ignored and eschewed.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not
prescribe non-sensitive approach of the learned Tribunal and
rather critisize such non-sensitive approach carried out by
learned tribunal to negate the claim of the person.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal stands
allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in OA (IIu)
ADI / 2019 / 0015 is quashed and set aside. The claimants are
entitled to fix compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ - with the interest
at the rate of 9% from the date of accident till its realsiation.
Railway is directed to deposit the decreetal amount including
accrued interest within six weeks from today as per request of
learned advocate Mr.Shukla, before the learned Railway
Tribunal. Upon depositing of such amount, learned Railway
Tribunal shall pass necessary disbursement award.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
