[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Jamnaben Baldevbhai Chavda Wd/O ... vs Union Of India on 4 May, 2026

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/1448/2012                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

                                                                                                                 undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1448 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI                                   Sd/-

                       =====================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting               No     Yes
                                                                         No
                       =====================================================
                       JAMNABEN BALDEVBHAI CHAVDA WD/O DECD.BALDEVBHAI
                                                 & ANR.
                                                  Versus
                                           UNION OF INDIA
                       =====================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
                       MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       =====================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                            Date : 04/05/2026
                                                               JUDGMENT

1. Dependent of the deceased - Baldevbhai Chavda claimed the fixed compensation of Rs.4 Lacs with interest by filing Claim Application No. OA20000085 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for the death of Baldevbhai Chavda allegedly due to accidental fall from the Train No.931 - Chittorgarh Ahmedabad Mewar Passenger Train on 16.04.2000 between Naroda to Asarva, whereby deceased, while re-entering in the train at Sardargram station, due to jolt and jerk, fell and died on the spot.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

2. This claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the Issue No.1 that the untoward accident, as alleged, within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') took place.

2.1 The original claimants, being aggrieved, preferred this appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the respondent.

4. The case of the claimant solely denied on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the railway ticket as well as any eye-witness, to prove deceased while re-entering the train, fell and received injuries and died on the spot.

5. Learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati submitted that the claimant had already filed the two affidavits, which are produced at Exhibit-76 of the paper-book, to assert that deceased had a valid ticket and he was a bonafide passenger.

5.1 He would further submit that the railway administration did not file the DRM report, which is essentially to be filed.

5.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati submitted to allow this appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

6. Learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the respondent, as against the aforesaid submission, would submit that in absence of the counter of the ticket, the deceased cannot be treated as one of the passenger and since claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a train passenger, any untoward incident, even took in presence of the railway, cannot hold the railway to be liable to pay the compensation.

6.1 Therefore, he submitted that the learned Railway Tribunal has rightly addressed the issue and dismissed the claim petition. It doesn't require any interference.

7. Identical issue has been addressed by this Court surveying the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Mandabai W/o Sukhdev Chavan (Mother Of Decd.), First Appeal No.213 of 2024. Para 9, 10, 11 & 12 are relevant and are reproduced herein as under:-

"9. At this stage, I may refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo v/s. GM, South East Central Railway [2018 ACJ 1460], whereby, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "...... it was not necessary to find out as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down - whether as per section 124-A and in view of the fact that no inquiry as provided by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident, claimants are entitled to compensation."

10. I may also refer recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shrikumar Gupta v/s. Union of India [2025 Live Law (SC) 1115], whereby, while negating Railway's plea under section 124A proviso clause (b) that death was caused by the deceased's self negligence from jumping train, Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 has taken view

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

as under :-

"10. Insofar as the contention or the plea put forward by the railways that deceased had sustained injuries on account of his own act, though, at first blush looks attractive, we are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that no sane person could have attempted to deboard or alight from a running train that too an express train. The railway authorities have taken a plea in the written statement in paragraph 3 that the deceased had jumped off the train, namely, had alighted at the station where he intended to alight, is a plea without proof. Having raised such a plea, it was incumbent upon the railway authorities to prove the same. However, the DRM Report is also silent on this aspect. For these reasons we are unable to accept the contention of learned ASG. The two members of the tribunal have rightly held that the railway authorities are required to pay the compensation."

11. In aforesaid circumstances, when Railways failed to complete investigation within stipulated time period and further failed to lead evidence that deceased has committed suicide by jumping from train, learned Tribunal has rightly presumed that deceased fell from running train as he received jerk. No sane person would attempt to de-board or alight from running train. Therefore, appellant Railways has failed to prove its first contention.

12. So far as second contention of the appellant that deceased was not bona fide passenger, as claimant has failed to produce ticket is concerned, it is case of the claimant that deceased was travelling in train with ticket and as there was sudden jerk and jolt, deceased fell down from train and lost his ticket. Said fact is declared on affidavit and also on oath by the claimant, more particularly para 3 on page no.150 i.e. affidavit filed by claimant. In cross examination, it is not contended that deceased has not purchased ticket, rather what is asked is whether ticket was recovered from deceased. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajni v/s. Union of India [2025 Live Law (SC) 986], held that mere absence of ticket with the deceased does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

Hon'ble Apex Court further held that hyper technical approach that frustrates the objet of providing relief to victims must be eschewed. Relevant observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 to 14 reads as under :-

"11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India, 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. 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

(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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

This view also gets fortified by the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of Kamukayi and Other 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 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)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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 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.' "

8. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

has committed serious and manifest error, much less error of understanding the provision of the law. This Court unable to subscribe the view of the learned Railway Tribunal. The view of the learned Railway Tribunal is against the object and purpose of 'the Act'. By taking such hyper-technical view, learned Railway Tribunal has defeated the very object and purpose of 'the Act'. Consequently, this Court holds that the learned Railway Tribunal was in error in rejecting the claim of the claimant.

9. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed only on the ground that the dependent of the deceased successfully proved that the deceased lost his life in the premises of the railways and the claim of the claimant that deceased was bonafide passenger is supported by the affidavit, which has not been rebutted by the learned Railway Tribunal in its true sense.

10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed.

11. The claimant shall be granted the compensation of Rs.4 Lacs (As it was prevalent at the relevant time) with 9% interest (As it was prevalent at the relevant time) from the date of the accident till realization. This accident prior to amendment in the Railway Act and Rules, which came in force with effect from 22.12.2016. At the relevant time, the basic compensation grantable to the claimant is Rs.4 Lacs.

12. However, in Union of India v. Radha Yadav, reported in 2019 ACJ 1132, the Supreme Court held that, if after applying the reasonable rate of interest, if the final figure of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

the compensation arrived is less than Rs.8 Lacs, then the Court is required to grant a compensation amount of Rs.8 Lacs and if the amount exceeds Rs.8 Lacs applying the reasonable rate of interest, again a fixed sum of Rs.8 Lacs has to be paid (See para 10 of the Judgment).

13. Following the ratio of the judgment in Radha Yadav (Supra), this Court, considering the time of the accident, believed that it is a case where after applying the reasonable rate of interest, i.e. 9% available at the relevant time on a basic amount of Rs.4 Lacs, the total calculation of the compensation would go beyond Rs.8 Lacs. Therefore, I grant the fixed compensation of Rs.8 Lacs to the claimant.

14. The Railway Administration is directed to deposit Rs.8 Lacs before the learned Railway Tribunal within 08 weeks from today.

15. Upon deposit of the said amount, learned Railway Tribunal shall disburse the amount of compensation deposited to the claimants after due verification and identification and after verifying their right to claim the compensation.