Bhagwanbhai Dattubhai Patil (Kale) ... vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 3159 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Bhagwanbhai Dattubhai Patil (Kale) ... vs Union Of India on 5 May, 2026

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/1143/2014                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

                                                                                                              undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1143 of 2014

                       ==========================================================
                       BHAGWANBHAI DATTUBHAI PATIL (KALE) (SINCE DECED' THRU LEGAL
                                             HEIRS) & ORS.
                                                 Versus
                                           UNION OF INDIA
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
                       for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
                       MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                        Date : 05/05/2026

                                                          JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, in Case No.OA 0600105, by which, the learned Member (Technical) dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased Vatsalaben Bhagwandas Patil, was a bona fide passenger.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, according to the claimant/s, the deceased Vatsalaben Patil, along with two other family members was travelling in Train No.8034 Down from Udhna to Ahmedabad on 21.05.2006. During the journey, she accidentally fell down at Platform No.1 at Surat Railway Station near Km. No.266/40 and succumbed to the injuries sustained by her.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

2.1 It is specifically averred by the claimants that the deceased was holding Ticket No.91444752, and a certified copy thereof has been produced on record. 2.2 In the aforesaid background, the claimant/s claimed fixed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till realization. 2.3 The Railway Administration contested the claim application by filing written statement. Besides denying the allegations made in the claim petition, the Railway Administration contended that the alleged incident is not an "untoward incident" and did not fall within the provisions of Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Punit Juneja for the respondent - Union of India

4. This is a case where certain facts are incontrovertible. The panchnama produced at Ex.A/1 records that the deceased Vatslaben Patil, sustained injuries while getting down from the train due to a jerk and jolt. The Inquest Panchnama at Ex.A/2 reveals that the deceased Vatsalaben was travelling to Ahmedabad to attend a marriage ceremony. Since the other family members had already alighted from the train to attend the marriage and she could not get down in time, she attempted to alight after the train had started moving, as a result of which, she fell down near Km. No.266/40 and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter died

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

during the treatment.

4.1 The DRM report shows that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as she was not carrying any ticket or pass at the time of the accident. This contention raised by the Railway Administration has been accepted by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition. However, learned advocate Mr. Raval invited the attention of this Court to page 80 of the paper book and submitted that the ticket was very much placed on record before the learned Tribunal, yet the Tribunal failed to notice the same and erroneously concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

4.2 It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Raval that the incident occurred within the railway platform premises and the deceased had fallen from the train. Despite these undisputed facts, the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the incident squarely falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. According to this Court, the learned Railway Tribunal has committed a serious and patent illegality. The ticket is available on record and the incident occurred on the railway platform. These two aspects are sufficient to bring the case within the scope of Sections 123 and 124 of the Railways Act.

5. At this stage, I may refer to the recent decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Mandabai W/o Sukhdev Chavan rendered in First Appeal No. 213 of 2024, wherein this Court considered the earlier pronouncements on the issue. Relevant paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

judgment read 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

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. 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."

(emphasis supplied)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

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. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

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)

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

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."

6. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Railway Tribunal has committed serious and manifest error. Therefore, the present First Appeal deserves consideration. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside. Record and proceedings, if any, be transmitted back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.

7. Consequently, the Civil Application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

8. Since the untoward accident occurred prior to the Amendment of the Rules of 1990, and following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019)3 SCC 410, fixed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded. The Railway Administration is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today before the learned Tribunal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026

undefined

9. The original claimant, Bhagwanbhai Patil, has ex- pired and is survived by four legal heirs, who are appellants in the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Raval submits that one of the said heirs has also expired.

10. In view of the above, the heirs of the deceased Bhagwanbhai are permitted to file a separate application before the learned Tribunal for disbursement of amount.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANOJ