IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI ==========================================================

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

UNION OF INDIA Versus MANDABAI W/O SUKHDEV CHAVAN (MOTHER OF DECD.)

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

Appearance:

MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 28/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1. By impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2023, learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the Tribunal”) in Case No.OA.2018/0005 awarded compensation of sum of Rs.8 lakhs with 9% interest from the date of incident i.e.

17.04.2017 till date of realization.

2. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 04.08.2023, appellant - Railways has preferred present appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

3. Tersely stated facts borne out from impugned judgment are that – deceased Prakash was travelling from Mumbai to Ahmedabad and accidentally fell from train carrying passengers resulting into his death on the spot on 17.04.2017. Therefore, mother of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.8 lakhs by filing claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Respondent – Railways contested claim of the claimant by filing written statement along with DRM report. Respondent Railway Administration denied all the averments and raised presumption that deceased might have committed suicide or fallen down due to his own negligence. It was therefore, contended that alleged incident is covered under section 124-A(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and thus, claimant is not entitled to claim amount of compensation.

4. Learned Tribunal permitting both the parties to lead evidence, after fixing issues, was pleased to grant compensation of sum of Rs.8 lakhs with 9% interest per annum from the date of incident till realization.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.D.Shukla for appellant and learned advocate Mr.P.J.Mehta for respondent – original claimant.

6. In line of its defence raised by Railways, learned advocate Mr.Shukla would submit that claimant failed to prove that deceased was traveling with ticket and since deceased was not bona fide passenger, learned Tribunal committed illegality in granting compensation. It is submitted that DRM report on record indicates that deceased fell from running train, which itself raise presumption that deceased due to his own negligence fell from train or might have committed suicide, in that event, Railways is not entitled to pay compensation. It is also submitted that conjoint reading of evidence, it is proved that deceased was not bona fide passenger and fell due to his own negligence or might have committed suicide. It is submitted that learned Tribunal committed manifest error in granting compensation by overlooking the very rudimentary facts, therefore, the appeal deserves consideration.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the respondent – claimant submitted that claimant has filed affidavit stating that ticket purchased by the deceased was lost in the accident, besides that, she entered into witness box and stated the same thing on oath. The said fact is not controverted in cross examination and thereby, Railways has accepted that deceased was travelling as bona fide passenger. It is submitted that even otherwise Railways should not take hyper technical approach that frustrates the object of providing relief to the victim. It is submitted that no ordinary person would jump from running train except in case of suicide. It is further submitted that as per rule 7.2 of the Railways Passengers (Manner of investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short “the Rules, 2003”), Investigating Officer has to c