JAMNABEN BALDEVBHAI CHAVDA WD/O DECD.BALDEVBHAI vs UNION OF INDIA

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1448 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-

=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=====================================================
JAMNABEN BALDEVBHAI CHAVDA WD/O DECD.BALDEVBHAI
& ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 04/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Dependent of the deceased – Baldevbhai Chavda
claimed the fixed compensation of Rs.4 Lacs with interest by
filing Claim Application No. OA20000085 before the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for the death of Baldevbhai
Chavda allegedly due to accidental fall from the Train No.931 –
Chittorgarh Ahmedabad Mewar Passenger Train on 16.04.2000
between Naroda to Asarva, whereby deceased, while re-entering
in the train at Sardargram station, due to jolt and jerk, fell and
died on the spot.
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
2. This claim petition was dismissed by the learned
Tribunal on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the
Issue No.1 that the untoward accident, as alleged, within the
meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) took place.
2.1 The original claimants, being aggrieved, preferred this
appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the
appellants and learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the
respondent.
4. The case of the claimant solely denied on the ground
that the claimant failed to prove the railway ticket as well as any
eye-witness, to prove deceased while re-entering the train, fell
and received injuries and died on the spot.
5. Learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati submitted that
the claimant had already filed the two affidavits, which are
produced at Exhibit-76 of the paper-book, to assert that
deceased had a valid ticket and he was a bonafide passenger.
5.1 He would further submit that the railway
administration did not file the DRM report, which is essentially
to be filed.
5.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. A.V.
Prajapati submitted to allow this appeal.
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
6. Learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the
respondent, as against the aforesaid submission, would submit
that in absence of the counter of the ticket, the deceased cannot
be treated as one of the passenger and since claimants failed to
prove that the deceased was a train passenger, any untoward
incident, even took in presence of the railway, cannot hold the
railway to be liable to pay the compensation.
6.1 Therefore, he submitted that the learned Railway
Tribunal has rightly addressed the issue and dismissed the
claim petition. It doesn't require any interference.
7. Identical issue has been addressed by this Court
surveying the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme
Court in case of Union of India v. Mandabai W/o Sukhdev
Chavan (Mother Of Decd.) , First Appeal No.213 of 2024 . Para
9, 10, 11 & 12 are relevant and are reproduced herein 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. GM,
South East Central Railway [2018 ACJ 1460], whereby,
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “…… it was not
necessary to find out as to whether it was the fault of the
deceased or that he accidentally fell down – whether as per
section 124-A and in view of the fact that no inquiry as
provided by the Rules was conducted immediately after the
incident, claimants are entitled to compensation.”
10. I may also refer recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Shrikumar Gupta v/s. Union of India
[2025 Live Law (SC) 1115] , whereby, while negating
Railway’s plea under section 124A proviso clause (b) that
death was caused by the deceased’s self negligence from
jumping train, Hon’ble Apex Court in para 10 has taken view
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
as under :-
“10. Insofar as the contention or the plea put forward by
the railways that deceased had sustained injuries on
account of his own act, though, at first blush looks
attractive, we are not inclined to accept the same for the
simple reason that no sane person could have attempted
to deboard or alight from a running train that too an
express train. The railway authorities have taken a plea
in the written statement in paragraph 3 that the deceased
had jumped off the train, namely, had alighted at the
station where he intended to alight, is a plea without
proof. Having raised such a plea, it was incumbent upon
the railway authorities to prove the same. However, the
DRM Report is also silent on this aspect. For these
reasons we are unable to accept the contention of learned
ASG. The two members of the tribunal have rightly held
that the railway authorities are required to pay the
compensation.”
11. In aforesaid circumstances, when Railways failed to
complete investigation within stipulated time period and
further failed to lead evidence that deceased has committed
suicide by jumping from train, learned Tribunal has rightly
presumed that deceased fell from running train as he
received jerk. No sane person would attempt to de-board or
alight from running train. Therefore, appellant Railways has
failed to prove its first contention.
12. So far as second contention of the appellant that
deceased was not bona fide passenger, as claimant has
failed to produce ticket is concerned, it is case of the
claimant that deceased was travelling in train with ticket
and as there was sudden jerk and jolt, deceased fell down
from train and lost his ticket. Said fact is declared on
affidavit and also on oath by the claimant, more particularly
para 3 on page no.150 i.e. affidavit filed by claimant. In
cross examination, it is not contended that deceased has not
purchased ticket, rather what is asked is whether ticket was
recovered from deceased. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Rajni v/s. Union of India [2025 Live Law (SC)
986] , held that mere absence of ticket with the deceased
does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
Hon’ble Apex Court further held that hyper technical
approach that frustrates the objet of providing relief to
victims must be eschewed. Relevant observation of Hon’ble
Apex Court in para 11 to 14 reads as under :-
“11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of
India, has held that the burden of proof would shift to the
Railways once, the Claimant-Appellant filed an affidavit
stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from
the investigation conducted by the railway authorities. It
has been further held: -
“15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial
pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can
be seen that the primary issue is whether the
deceased was travelling on the train in question. In
Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC
572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , a two-Judge Bench of
this Court considered the question of the party on
which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the
body of the deceased is found on railway premises.
This Court held that the initial burden would be on the
claimant, which could be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did
so, the burden would then shift to the Railways.
Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a
ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from
the ruling of the Court is reproduced below: (SCC p.
588, para 29) “29. We thus hold that mere presence of
a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive
to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide
passenger for which claim for compensation could be
maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with
such injured or deceased will not negative the claim
that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will
be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then
shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on
the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This
will have to be dealt with from case to case on the
basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard
will stand explained accordingly.”
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an
affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report
arising from the investigation conducted by the
respondent, which showed that the deceased was
travelling on the train and that his death was caused
by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of
proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not
discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that
the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train
in question was not rebutted.
17. Further, the report of the IO indicates the details
mentioned in the post-mortem report. It states that the
cause of death was due to an injury sustained on the
head and that all injuries were antemortem and
caused by “blunt force impact”. It also states that
forty-eight to seventy-two hours had passed since the
time of death.”
12. Though Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the Railways has made a fervent
plea to contend that the finding recorded by the Tribunal
with regard to the suspicious circumstances of the
railway tickets relied upon is sufficient to discard the
claim, we are not impressed by the said submission for
reasons more than one. Firstly, the initial burden which is
cast on the claimants to prove that the deceased had
travelled in the train has been discharged by the sworn
statement made by first claimant (wife of deceased).
Secondly, the High Court by relying upon the report of
DRM report (R/1) has arrived at a conclusion that death
of 1st claimants husband would fall within the purview of
expression ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section
124 (A) of the Act; Thirdly, the railway ticket which
formed part of the police report stood unrebutted;
Fourthly, the very same report also disclosed the Chief
Booking Supervisor, Indore had verified the ticket
produced alongwith the report of the police and certified
that ticket had been issued from Indore Station. This
would clearly satisfy the requirement of the expression
‘passenger’ as contemplated under Clause (ii) to
Explanation to Section 124 (A) of the Act and deceased
being declared as a ‘passenger’ travelling in the train.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
This view also gets fortified by the judgment of the
coordinate bench in the case of Kamukayi and Other vs.
Union of India and Others4, whereunder it has been held:
-
‘9. ……………………………………….. By the
explanation of the said section clarifying about
“passenger”, it would include a person who has
purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train
carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform
ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina
Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] has
explained the burden of proof when body of a
passenger is found on railway premises. While
analysing the said issue, this Court has considered
the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj
Kumari v. Union of India [Raj Kumari v. Union of India,
1992 SCC OnLine MP 96] and the judgments of the
Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India
[Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine
Del 101] , the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty
Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India [Jetty Naga
Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine
AP 828] and also considered the judgment of this
Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India [Kamrunnissa
v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 : (2018) 5 SCC
(Civ) 613] and in para 29 concluded as thus : (Rina
Devi case [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC
572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , SCC p. 588) “29. We
thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or
deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim
for compensation could be maintained. However, mere
absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will
not negative the claim that he was a bona fide
passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which
can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant
facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and
the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the
attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt
with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The
legal position in this regard will stand explained
accordingly.”” (emphasis supplied)
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
13. In the light of the above, we are of the considered
view that the High Court had faulted in affirming the
finding of the Railways Claims Tribunal whereunder the
claimants petition had been rejected for nonproduction of
a seizure memo of the ticket and for non- examination of
the investigating officer, which is and was the main
thrust of argument canvassed by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Railways. This reasoning ignores the
consistent judicial line that the absence of formal seizure
or witness examination does not, by itself, negate
bonafide travel when other material evidence
substantiate the claim. Mere technical irregularities or
lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim
under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989.
Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with liability of
railway administration for death and injury to passenger
due to accident. A Hyper technical approach which would
frustrate the object of providing relief to victims of railway
accidents should be eschewed. The insistence on a formal
seizure memo would amount to importing standard of
proof which normally is sought for in a criminal trial.
14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section
124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials
demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare
statues are governed by the principles of preponderance
and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i)
possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii)
occurrence of an accidental fall from a train, are
established through credible material, the statutory
presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of
the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality of the
State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to
procedural imperfections in investigation or non-
examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise
would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and
convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle
race.’ ”
8. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of
the present case, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
has committed serious and manifest error, much less error of
understanding the provision of the law. This Court unable to
subscribe the view of the learned Railway Tribunal. The view of
the learned Railway Tribunal is against the object and purpose of
‘the Act’. By taking such hyper-technical view, learned Railway
Tribunal has defeated the very object and purpose of ‘the Act’.
Consequently, this Court holds that the learned Railway
Tribunal was in error in rejecting the claim of the claimant.
9. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed only on
the ground that the dependent of the deceased successfully
proved that the deceased lost his life in the premises of the
railways and the claim of the claimant that deceased was
bonafide passenger is supported by the affidavit, which has not
been rebutted by the learned Railway Tribunal in its true sense.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is
allowed.
11. The claimant shall be granted the compensation of
Rs.4 Lacs (As it was prevalent at the relevant time) with 9%
interest (As it was prevalent at the relevant time) from the date of
the accident till realization. This accident prior to amendment in
the Railway Act and Rules, which came in force with effect from
22.12.2016. At the relevant time, the basic compensation
grantable to the claimant is Rs.4 Lacs.
12. However, in Union of India v. Radha Yadav ,
reported in 2019 ACJ 1132 , the Supreme Court held that, if
after applying the reasonable rate of interest, if the final figure of
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026

C/FA/1448/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
the compensation arrived is less than Rs.8 Lacs, then the Court
is required to grant a compensation amount of Rs.8 Lacs and if
the amount exceeds Rs.8 Lacs applying the reasonable rate of
interest, again a fixed sum of Rs.8 Lacs has to be paid (See para
10 of the Judgment).
13. Following the ratio of the judgment in Radha Yadav
(Supra), this Court, considering the time of the accident,
believed that it is a case where after applying the reasonable rate
of interest, i.e. 9% available at the relevant time on a basic
amount of Rs.4 Lacs, the total calculation of the compensation
would go beyond Rs.8 Lacs. Therefore, I grant the fixed
compensation of Rs.8 Lacs to the claimant.
14. The Railway Administration is directed to deposit
Rs.8 Lacs before the learned Railway Tribunal within 08 weeks
from today.
15. Upon deposit of the said amount, learned Railway
Tribunal shall disburse the amount of compensation deposited
to the claimants after due verification and identification and
after verifying their right to claim the compensation.
16. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any,
to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:06:48 IST 2026