JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.07.2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, in Claim Application No.OA9800052.

2. Brief facts borne out from the impugned order are that, on 05.01.1998, the deceased-Abbasali Dareshali Sheikh, was traveling as a bonafide passenger in Surat Railway Passenger Train No.113 Down from Vyara to Dharangaon. At the time of accident, he was allegedly pushed from behind due to rush of passengers and fell near Vyara Railway Station, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury. Consequently, Abbasali Sheikh, succumbed to the injuries during the treatment at the hospital.

2.1 It is averred that Station Master (S.M.), Vyara, informed the GRP, Vyra, and thereafter, GRP Vyra prepared the Inquest Panchnama, Panchnama of place of occurrence, Post-mortem report etc. The ticket number was also pleading in the claim petition and was subsequently produced in evidence. Initially, the claim petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 05.01.1999, and the claimants were granted Rs.4,00,000/- with 12% interest.

2.2 The Union of India challenged the said judgment and order passed by the Railway Tribunal by filing First Appeal No.326 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court, having observed that the Union of India was not given an opportunity to lead the evidence to rebut the case of the claimant, allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, by its decision dated 21st March, 2003 and remanded the matter to the learned Railway Tribunal for fresh consideration.

2.3 Pursuant thereto, the Railway Tribunal permitted the Union of India to lead evidence; however, it subsequently dismissed the claim petition by judgment and order dated 8th July, 2003, holding that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased Abbasali Sheikh was a bonafide passenger, that he fell from the train, and the incident fall within the definition of an “untoward incident.”

2.4 Being aggrieved, the original claimant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Shah for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Archana Amin for the respondent.

4. What can be noticed is that, while passing the impugned judgment, the Railway Tribunal failed to consider the appearance report at Ex.9, wherein, in the Accidental Death Report (Aksmat Maut Report), it is specifically stated that the incident occurred while the deceased was attempting to board a running train. The ticket of the deceased was also placed on record. The evidence on record presents a direct conflict: on one hand, the claimant asserts that the deceased died while boarding the train, whereas on the other hand, it has been deposed that no untoward incident was reported. Considering the object and purport of the Railways Act, more particularly, when the claimant has produced the ticket to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, and further in light of the preparation of the Inquest Panchnama and Panchnama of the Place of occurrence by the GRP, Vyara (and not by the Regular Police), it clearly indicates that incident occurred within the railway premises.

5. At this juncture, I may refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajni and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2025) Livelaw SC 986, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, as well as, in the case of Kamukai and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2023) 19 SCC 116, In para 9, 12, 13 and 14 thereof, reads as under:-

“9.The legal position is not in dispute: Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault regime for “untoward incidents”, but compensation remains predicated on the victim being a “passenger”. For present pu