JUDGMENT :

J.C. Doshi, J.

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, 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.

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 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 decea