IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 696 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No YES ==========================================================

ARUNABEN @ DIMPALBEN WD/O NITINBHAI PATEL WD/O DECD. &

ORS.

Versus UNION OF INDIA ==========================================================

Appearance:

DEV D PATEL(8264) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 17/11/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter) in O.A. No. IIU/2015/0320, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim preferred by the claimant–appellant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (‘the Act’

hereinafter).

2 It is the case of the appellants that they are the dependents of the deceased, Nitinbhai Patel, who was travelling by DMU Train on 28.12.2014 from Mehsana to Abu Road holding a valid travelling ticket. Near Chitrasani Railway Station, the deceased fell down from the slow-running train due to heavy rush and push of passengers and died on the spot. Seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under the Act, the appellants preferred the claim before the learned Tribunal.

2.1 In support of the claim, the appellants placed on record the copy of the memo, receipt of the dead body, panchnama of the place of incident, inquest panchnama, travelling ticket, post-mortem report, aavak vardhi, certificate issued by Palanpur Railway Station, election cards of appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, school leaving certificate of appellant No.1, ration card, final investigation reports prepared by the GRP and the SDM, and the pedigree issued by the Gram Panchayat.

2.2 Upon appearance of the opponent-department, a return statement came to be filed along with the DRM report. After considering the evidence led by both sides, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim preferred by the appellants, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.D.D.Patel for the appellants and learned advocate Ms.Jhaveri for the defendant.

4 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim on the ground that the deceased died due to self-inflicted injury as contemplated under Section 124A of the Act. He submits that no eyewitness has been examined on behalf of the respondent- department to establish that the case of the appellants falls under the exceptions carved out in Section 124A of the Act.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the learned Tribunal, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, has arrived at the conclusion that the deceased died due to his own criminal act. He submits that the post-mortem report clearly indicates multiple injuries on the body of the deceased, which were sustained as a result of being run over by the train after he accidentally fell down from the compartment.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that once the appellants discharged their initial onus of proving that the death occurred due to an untoward incident, the burden shifted upon the respondent-department to establish that the case did not constitute an untoward incident but was a case of suicide or self-inflicted injury. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that no such burden has been discharged nor any evidence placed on record to substantiate the plea of self-inflicted injury.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the exception under Section 124A(b) of the Act was never pleaded by the respondent-department in its written statement; however, the learned Tribunal has erroneously concluded tha