[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Union Of India - General Manager vs Debjani Dey on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 210 of 2026
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA - GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
DEBJANI DEY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 24/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 (in short "the Act") is directed against the judgment
and order dated 12.8.2025 passed by the leaned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case
No.OA (Iiu) No.603 of 2025, whereby the the learned Railway
Tribunal allowed claim of Rs.8 lakh plus interest from the date
of incident till the amount actually realized.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2024 the
deceased was bonafide passenger who wanted to go from
Ahmedabad (ADI) to Gandhidham (GIMB) in train no. 20936
Indore-Gandhidham weekly SF Express. During the course of
boarding the train at platform no.4 of ADI station, he lost his
balance due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train and
accidentally fell down from the train. Due to which he was
dragged with train and sustained multiple grievous injuries
resulting in death on the spot. After this incident, due to chain
pulling the train was stopped and he was pulled out from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
gap between platform and the train. Station Superintendent,
Ahmedabad called 108 ambulance but the doctors declared
him as dead. It is further pleaded that the ticket was lost
during the incident along with other items. In these
consequences, the claimants being the dependents are
entitled to the compensation.
2.1 The railway having been served, raised contention that
the deceased tried to board running train, which could be
visualized in the CCTV footage. That during search, one
mobile was recovered and upon verification it was found that
the deceased was having a ticket bearing PNR No.
6436353866 from Shalimar to ADI of train No. 12906. That as
per TSR, 12906 train arrived at 09:21 hrs. at platform no.3
and 20936 train departed at 09:22 hrs. from platform no. 4 of
ADI, so it is not possible for the deceased to take a general
ticket. That as per the train Reservation Chart of 20936 train,
the deceased's name was not mentioned, so the deceased was
not a bonafide passenger and that the incident happened due
to deceased's self-infliction. Therefore, the railway is not
responsible to pay any compensation.
2.2 After permitting both the parties to lead evidence, the
learned Railway Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8 lakh
plus interest from the date of incident till the amount actually
realized, believing that the deceased could be held as bona
fide purchaser as he has to board train from ADI to GIMB
within one minute after he de-boarded from other train in
platform No.3 and could not have time to purchase ticket but
he could not be traced out from the definition of bona fide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
purchaser.
2.3 Being aggrieved, the railway has preferred this appeal
inter alia on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal.
3. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Harsheel Shukla
appearing for the appellant. Though served, none appears for
the respondents.
4. According to learned advocate Mr. Shukla, entire
decretal amount has been deposited by the railway and the
same has already been withdrawn by the respondents
claimants. He would further submit that admittedly, when the
accident took place, the deceased was without ticket and he
tried to board the train without ticket. He would further
submit that in the present case, the learned Railway Tribunal
has extended the concept of notional passenger as he has
purchased the ticket for one train, in which he has travelled
and could not purchase ticket for another train, in which he
was supposed to travel. In these circumstances, he would
submit that the findings of the learned Railway Tribunal is
incorrect, unjust and improper.
4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shukla
prays to allow this appeal and to quash and set aside the
impugned order.
5. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for
the appellant, at the outset, let refer para 10 to 13 of the
impugned judgment and order, which read as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
"10. According to the Applicants and as per evidence,
the deceased was bonafide passenger and the ticket
was lost in the incident hence, the deceased was
bonafide passenger. However, the Respondent
contested that no ticket was recovered deceased for
travel of ADL to GIMB hence, the the day of incident.
The Applicants AIMS TRIBUNAL did not adduce any
evidence to prove that PNR ticket bearing No.
6436353866 of train Na 12906 for travel from
ShahMEDABAD ADI. 3 AC class, waiting position at
67, amount Rs. 2118.60/-, in the name of deceased,
was recovered from mobile of the deceased. The said
electronic PNR ticket was verified by the Respondent
and it is found that the ticket was booked on
24.05.2024.
11. The Respondent has failed to verify whether the
deceased's ticket for the journey was confirmed.
However, in its written statement, the Respondent
admitted tha the deceased had completed his prior
journey and arrived at ADI at 09:21 hrs. by Train No.
12906. This admission establishes that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger at ADI station. Upon
arrival, he intended to travel to GIMB and may have
noticed Train No. 20936 departing towards GIMB.
Given the limited time, he might have attempted to
board the train without purchasing a fresh ticket. In
such circumstances, had he successfully boarded, the
Travelling Ticket Examiner could have issued an
Excess Fare Ticket up to GIMB based on his previous
ticket as per the clause (b) of sub-section 2 of Section
138 of the Railways Act, 1989, Therefore, the
deceased's status as a bona fide passenger cannot be
denied merely because he was unable to purchase a
ticket after alighting from Train No. 12906 at ADI,
proceeded to the booking office at ADI, purchased a
ticket, and returned to Platform No. 4 to board Train
No. 20936 within a short span of time. The
Respondent unnecessarily prolonged the litigation
and incurred expenses by examining three witnesses,
when the core issue was the confirmation status of
the PNR ticket
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
12. After perusal of the CCTV footage, it can be said
that there was no negligence or self-inflicted act
committed by the deceased. The Respondent's whole
case was based on bonafide passenger status, no
efforts was made to bring this case within the
Provisos to Sec. 124-A of The Railways Act, 1989.
Therefore, there is no legal impediment in coming to
the conclusion that the deceased was travelling as a
bonafide passenger on the day of incident.
13. Thus, we are of the view that, there is no legal
impediment in coming to the conclusion that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger and died as a
result of the untoward incident as defined u/s 123 (c)
(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Accordingly, our findings on issue No. 1 & 2 are in
the affirmative."
6. With profit, I may also refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Rajni Versus Union Of India, 2025
AIR SC 4892, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 to
15, observed as under:-
"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 nonproduction 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
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 on a formal seizure
memo would amount to importing standard of proof
which normally is sought for in a criminal trial.
14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under
Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal
trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but
welfare statues are governed by the principles of
preponderance and probabilities. Once the
foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a
valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental fall
from a train, are established through credible
material, the statutory presumption of bona fide
travel must operate in favour of the claimant. The
Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot
defeat such claims by pointing to procedural
imperfections in investigation or non-examination of
formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would erode the
beneficial character of the legislation and convert a
social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race.
15. It is therefore declared that where an official
railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the
issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and
route of an untoward incident, such verification shall
constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel,
shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway
Administration. The absence of a seizure memo, or
the inability of the police to preserve physical
evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim
when the totality of circumstances supports the
claimant's version. This principle shall guide all
future tribunals and High Courts in construing
Section 124-A, so that the statutory right to
compensation remains real, accessible, and
consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the
enactment."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
7. Another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is also
required to be seen in case of Shrikumar Gupta Vs. Union
of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115, whereby the Hon'ble
Apex Court granted compensation to a passenger who having
a ticket, boarded on a wrong express train. The Hon'ble Apex
Court declined the plea of self-negligence and granted
compensation. Relevant para is 9, which reads as under:-
"9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the records, it would
reveal that there was no dispute to the fact that the
deceased having purchased a valid ticket to travel
from Satna to Maihar. On the relevant date i.e. on
29.05.2013 another express train has also entered
the platform in which the deceased was standing and
by mistake obviously having seen the train having
arrived at the same platform he has boarded the train
to travel to Maihar. In fact said express train also
passed through Maihar. However, the deceased not
being well conversant with these details obviously
under mistaken notion has boarded the express train.
The DMR Report would also indicate that the
deceased had in fact purchased a railway ticket and
had expired due to the injuries sustained in the
railway accident. It was for this precise reason that
both the members of the tribunal held in favour of the
claimants, by arriving at a conclusion that deceased
was a bona fide passenger. Merely because the
deceased had boarded a wrong train, it cannot be
construed that he was not a bona fide passenger so as
to absolve the railway authorities from contending
that deceased not being a bona fide passenger."
8. In the present case, the fact states that the deceased
was travelling in a Shalimar Express from Shalimar to
Ahmedabad and he de-boarded the train at platform No.3 at
9:21 hrs and he has to catch the train namely Indore-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/210/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Gandhidham weekly SF Express, which was to be departed
from platform No.4 at 9:22 hrs, so within gap of one minute,
the deceased has to travel from platform No.3 to platform
No.4. The deceased completed his travel from platform No.3
to platform No.4 and while he was in the process of boarding
the train, he received jerk and jolt and thereby, fell in the gap
between train and platform and was crushed. No sane person
would attempt to board a running express train and to put his
life in danger. In the present case, the deceased has already
boarded Indore-Gandhidham weekly SF Express, but due to
jerk and jolt, he fell in the gap between train and platform and
received crush injury, which is ultimately resulted into death.
9. The CCTV footage supports the case of the claimants.
The DRM report so also the investigation report at Exh.R(1)
and map of the railway track and platform of Ahmedabad and
etc. are also supporting the case of the claimants. In view of
above, it is undeniable that the untoward incident took place
within the precinct of the railway. The deceased was bona
fide purchaser and proceedings u/s 124A are governed by
principles of preponderance and probabilities, not the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which required in
criminal trial. Once foundational facts are proved, the railway
is bound to give compensation to the victim.
10. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed. Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
