JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, in Case No.OA 0600105, by which, the learned Member (Technical) dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased Vatsalaben Bhagwandas Patil, was a bona fide passenger.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, according to the claimant/s, the deceased Vatsalaben Patil, along with two other family members was travelling in Train No.8034 Down from Udhna to Ahmedabad on 21.05.2006. During the journey, she accidentally fell down at Platform No.1 at Surat Railway Station near Km. No.266/40 and succumbed to the injuries sustained by her.

2.1 It is specifically averred by the claimants that the deceased was holding Ticket No.91444752, and a certified copy thereof has been produced on record.

2.2 In the aforesaid background, the claimant/s claimed fixed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till realization.

2.3 The Railway Administration contested the claim application by filing written statement. Besides denying the allegations made in the claim petition, the Railway Administration contended that the alleged incident is not an “untoward incident” and did not fall within the provisions of Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Punit Juneja for the respondent – Union of India

4. This is a case where certain facts are incontrovertible. The panchnama produced at Ex.A/1 records that the deceased Vatslaben Patil, sustained injuries while getting down from the train due to a jerk and jolt. The Inquest Panchnama at Ex.A/2 reveals that the deceased Vatsalaben was travelling to Ahmedabad to attend a marriage ceremony. Since the other family members had already alighted from the train to attend the marriage and she could not get down in time, she attempted to alight after the train had started moving, as a result of which, she fell down near Km. No.266/40 and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter died during the treatment.

4.1 The DRM report shows that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as she was not carrying any ticket or pass at the time of the accident. This contention raised by the Railway Administration has been accepted by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition. However, learned advocate Mr. Raval invited the attention of this Court to page 80 of the paper book and submitted that the ticket was very much placed on record before the learned Tribunal, yet the Tribunal failed to notice the same and erroneously concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

4.2 It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Raval that the incident occurred within the railway platform premises and the deceased had fallen from the train. Despite these undisputed facts, the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the incident squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. According to this Court, the learned Railway Tribunal has committed a serious and patent illegality. The ticket is available on record and the incident occurred on the railway platform. These two aspects are sufficient to bring the case within the scope of Sections 123 and 124 of the Railways Act.

5. At this stage, I may refer to the recent decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Mandabai W/o Sukhdev Chavan rendered in First Appeal No. 213 of 2024, wherein this Court considered the earlier pronouncements on the issue. Relevant paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment read as under:-

“9. At this stage, I may refer to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo v/s.