JUDGMENT

1. This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”) is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2025 passed by the leaned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case No.OA (Iiu) No.603 of 2025, whereby the the learned Railway Tribunal allowed claim of Rs.8 lakh plus interest from the date of incident till the amount actually realized.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2024 the deceased was bonafide passenger who wanted to go from Ahmedabad (ADI) to Gandhidham (GIMB) in train no. 20936 Indore-Gandhidham weekly SF Express. During the course of boarding the train at platform no.4 of ADI station, he lost his balance due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train and accidentally fell down from the train. Due to which he was dragged with train and sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in death on the spot. After this incident, due to chain pulling the train was stopped and he was pulled out from the gap between platform and the train. Station Superintendent, Ahmedabad called 108 ambulance but the doctors declared him as dead. It is further pleaded that the ticket was lost during the incident along with other items. In these consequences, the claimants being the dependents are entitled to the compensation.

2.1 The railway having been served, raised contention that the deceased tried to board running train, which could be visualized in the CCTV footage. That during search, one mobile was recovered and upon verification it was found that the deceased was having a ticket bearing PNR No. 6436353866 from Shalimar to ADI of train No. 12906. That as per TSR, 12906 train arrived at 09:21 hrs. at platform no.3 and 20936 train departed at 09:22 hrs. from platform no. 4 of ADI, so it is not possible for the deceased to take a general ticket. That as per the train Reservation Chart of 20936 train, the deceased's name was not mentioned, so the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the incident happened due to deceased's self-infliction. Therefore, the railway is not responsible to pay any compensation.

2.2 After permitting both the parties to lead evidence, the learned Railway Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8 lakh plus interest from the date of incident till the amount actually realized, believing that the deceased could be held as bona fide purchaser as he has to board train from ADI to GIMB within one minute after he de-boarded from other train in platform No.3 and could not have time to purchase ticket but he could not be traced out from the definition of bona fide purchaser.

2.3 Being aggrieved, the railway has preferred this appeal inter alia on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal.

3. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Harsheel Shukla appearing for the appellant. Though served, none appears for the respondents.

4. According to learned advocate Mr. Shukla, entire decretal amount has been deposited by the railway and the same has already been withdrawn by the respondents claimants. He would further submit that admittedly, when the accident took place, the deceased was without ticket and he tried to board the train without ticket. He would further submit that in the present case, the learned Railway Tribunal has extended the concept of notional passenger as he has purchased the ticket for one train, in which he has travelled and could not purchase ticket for another train, in which he was supposed to travel. In these circumstances, he would submit that the findings of the learned Railway Tribunal is incorrect, unjust and improper.

4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shukla prays to allow this appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned order.

5. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for the appellant, at the outset, let refer para 10 to 13 of the impugned judgment and order, which read as under:-

“10. According to the Applicants and as per evidence, the deceased was bonafide