MANSUKH HARIBHAI RATHOD vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3305 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANSUKH HARIBHAI RATHOD & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 13/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment
dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench in Case No.OA(IIu)/ADI/612/2024(DT), whereby the
claim petition filed by the appellants herein came to be rejected.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal as
emerged from the record are as under:-
2.1 That, on 08.08.2024, Manish Mansukhbhai Rathod (hereinafter
called and referred to as “deceased”) alongwith his friends namely
Hardik, Afzal and Akhtarhusen, had started their journey from Mumbai
Central to Wankaner via Ahmedabad by traveling in train No.22945
Mumbai Central-Okha Saurashtra Mail with valid and proper railway
traveling ticket. During the course of journey, the deceased went to
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
attend natural call, in the meantime, due to sudden jerk and jolt of the
train as well as due to heavy rush and push of the passengers, he lost
his balance and accidently fell down from the running train on
09.08.2024 at km.No.434/28-435/01 between Anand and Kanjari
Boriyavi stations. Due to said fall, he was dragged with the train and
sustained multiple grievous crushed injuries on different parts of his
body, resulted into death on the spot. Upon listening commotion, the
friends came to know about the incident and thereafter, they made
chain pulling. The train stopped at Nadiad station. They got down the
train and informed railway authority of Nadiad Station about the
incident. Thereafter, the friends approached to Station Master, and
subsequently succeeded to trace the dead body of the deceased.
After completion of due police procedure formalities, the dead body
of the son of the claimant was handed over to them to perform final
rites. It has also been averred that the ticket alongwith other
belongings were lost in the untoward incident.
3. The respondents herein filed written statement stating therein
that as per the report provided by UTS Center W.R., on the journey
starting date i.e. 08.08.2024, only three tickets were issued for the
alleged journey i.e. from Mumbai Central to Vankaner at different
times and only one ticket was issued between 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm on
08.08.2024. Therefore, in brief, it is stated that the deceased was not
the bonafide passenger and hence, the claim petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal
framed following issues:-
“1. Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid Railway
journey ticket and was a 3 bonafide passenger of the train in
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
question at relevant time?
2. Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to
fall from passenger train, suffered injuries and died as a result
thereof and the present case is covered under the definition of
Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased
within the definition under Section 123 (b) of Railways Act, and
are entitled to compensation as claimed?
4. To what Relief?”
5. In order to prove their case, the claimants-appellants herein
filed affidavit in examination in chief and also examined one co-
passenger, namely Saiyed Afzal Abdulbhai. The respondent has not led
any oral evidence however, placed DRM report on record and DTC
report regarding UTS tickets issued from MMCT location.
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the pleadings, evidence
adduced by the parties and the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the deceased was
not the bonafide passenger on the relevant date and time. Therefore,
the incident does not fall within the ambit of ‘ untoward incident’ as
defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter
called and referred as “the Act”) and accordingly, dismissed the claim
petition.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment,
the original claimants-appellants herein challenged the impugned
judgment on the ground that the finding given by the learned Tribunal
is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
8. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
9. Mr. Rathin Raval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original claimants vehemently submitted that the finding given by the
learned Tribunal is not sustainable in view of the evidence and
material placed on record by the claimants-appellants. The learned
Tribunal relied upon the DRM report, which was not proved on record
and which was not prepared within stipulated period. Therefore, it lost
its evidentiary value in the eyes of law. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of Sukhabhai Nanjibhai
Makwana another v/s. Union of India reported in 2026 INSC 1056 .
Learned counsel for the appellant/original claimants further
submitted that the claimants-appellants have proved on record that at
the time of incident, the deceased was travelling in train and he fell
down from the train owing to the jerk and jolt. The ticket was lost due
to the incident. He submitted that the said fact was duly stated on
oath in the affidavit of the claimant-appellant No.1. The appellant
No.1 has stated on oath that the traveling ticket is lost alongwith a
pocket comb, a handkerchief, a bag, a cash of Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/- and
not found after this untoward incident till date.
10. He further submitted that not only this, the claimants-
appellants have also examined one Mr. Saiyed Afzal Abdulbhai, who
was the co-passenger. He also proved on record that the ticket was
purchased and after purchasing the ticket, they started journey, but
the ticket was lost alongwith other belongings. He submitted that in
view of oral evidence on record, the learned Tribunal ought to have
held that the deceased was the bonafide passenger, but the learned
Tribunal did not hold this oral evidence. He submitted that the initial
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
burden has been duly discharged by the claimants and therefore, the
onus to prove contrary lie upon the respondent. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of Union of India v/s
Rina Devi , reported in, 2018 ACJ 1441 and in case of Lata v. Union of
India & Anr. Reported in, [2026 INSC 715] .
11. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the captioned appeal
deserves to be allowed.
12. Per contra, Mrs. Krishna Raval, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent-Railway, vehemently submitted that there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment. She submitted that it was not
proved on record that the deceased was traveling with valid ticket.
The ticket was not proved on record. She further submitted that the
report of UTS was placed on record which clearly shows that only
three tickets were purchased from the window at the relevant point
of time and two tickets were purchased from Vending machine.
Therefore, the version of claimants is not sustainable. At the time of
incident, as alleged by the claimants, the deceased alongwith other
three friends were traveling in the train however, only three tickets
were purchased and therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. She submitted that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in holding that the deceased was not the
bonafide passenger. In support of her contention, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in case of Omkar and
Another v/s. Union of India , reported in, 2024 DHC 42 .
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the
dead body of Manish was found in crushed condition. If the deceased
would have fallen accidently from the running train, the dead body
would not have been found in such situation. Therefore, it creates
doubt on the case of the claimants. She submitted that it is not the
case of untoward incident. In support of her contention, learned
counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Apex Court rendered in case of Kamrunnissa v/s. Union of India,
reported in, 2017(0) AIJEL-SC60040 . Having placed reliance upon the
aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and therefore, the
captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that
learned Railway Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
original claimants/appellants on the ground that at the time of
incident, the deceased-Manish was not having valid traveling ticket
and therefore, he was not bonafide passenger. The learned Tribunal
further observed that the incident would not fall within the ambit of
‘ untoward incident ’ as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.
15. Now, in light of the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, the point for determination that arises as to whether the
claimant-deceased was bonafide passenger or not or the case of the
claimant-deceased fall within the ambit of ‘ untoward incident ’ as
defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. In order to decide this point,
evidence led by the parties is required to be looked into. The appellant
No.1-original claimant filed his affidavit on record. In para-15 of the
affidavit, he stated as under:-
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
“15. It is true that railway traveling ticket Ex. Mumbai Central to
Ahmedabad) is lost along with a pocket comb, a handkerchief, a
bag, a cash of Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/- and not found after this
untoward incident till date.”
15.1 He also deposed in para-17 as under:-
“….it is true that railway traveling ticket is lost along with a
pocket comb, a handkerchief, a bag, a cash of Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/-
and not found after this untoward incident till date….”
16. The claimants have also examined the co-passenger, who was
traveling alongwith deceased as AW-2 namely Saiyed Afzal Abdulbhai.
In para-5 of his affidavit, he deposed as under:-
“5. Hence, on 08/08/2024 in the night, we all reached at
Mumbai Central Railway Station and my deceased friend Manish
had purchased our railway travelling ticket(s) (Ex. Mumbai Central
to Ahmedabad, dated 08/08/2024, Second Class) and paid the
fare. I was with him when he purchased the ticket(s) and I saw him
purchasing the ticket(s) also. The ticket(s) were kept by my
deceased friend Manish with him during the course of journey.
Manish had purchased ticket(s) for four persons and had given 2
notes of Rs. 500/- each to the ticket window and in return he
received ticket(s) and some change from ticket window but I do
not know how many ticket(s) he purchased but the tickets were
purchased for all of us four (means how many ticket containing for
how many adults).”
16.1 In para-13, he further deposed that:-
“….it is true that our railway traveling ticket(s) is lost along with
my deceased friend’s pocket comb, a handkerchief, a bag, a cash of
Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/- and not found after this untoward incident
till date….”
17. Thus, the claimants as well as witness who was co-passenger
proved on record that the deceased was travelling after having
purchased the ticket from the ticket window. Both the witnesses have
also proved on record that tickets were lost after untoward incident.
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
18. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the report of UTS. It emerges from the order sheet on record that the
respondent has not examined any witness. The respondents simply
produced the reports. These reports were not proved on record
however, the learned Tribunal has given undue weightage to the
unproved document and observed that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger as he was traveling without ticket. It emerges
from the affidavit of claimant as well as co-passenger that the
deceased was traveling after having purchased the ticket. Thus, the
initial burden has been discharged by the claimant.
19. In case of Union of India v/s Rina Devi , reported in, 2018 ACJ
1441 , the Apex Court held as under:-
17.3 In Kamrunnissa (supra), from the circumstances appearing in
that case it was held that there was no evidence that the deceased
had purchased the ticket. In the given fact situation of that case,
this Court inferred that it was not a case of 'untoward incident'
but a case of run over. It was observed :
"7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the
deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the
railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of
the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual
position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the
stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the
inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out
of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an
accident could have taken place while boarding a train.
8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of
paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals,
that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of
the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but
importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other
article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway
authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in
possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
railway station."
17.4 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.
20. Further, in case of Lata v. Union of India & Anr. Reported in,
[2026 INSC 715] . , reported in , the Apex Court observed in para-19 as
under:-
“19. Turning back to the present facts, there is a statement by the
appellant that the deceased had a ticket in his bag for the
journey. There is no other way to prove this. There is no denial of
the deceased travelling in the train and occurrence of the
incident. The factum of death and it not falling into the
exceptions provided for, is quite clear. It is no one’s case that the
exceptions apply. Then, the claim only depends on the ticket. The
said bag in which the ticket was allegedly kept, could not be
recovered, more so by the Police. Be that as it may, we are of the
view that the Courts below have erred in not awarding
compensation to the appellant. The decision in Rina Devi (supra)
subsequently approved by a Bench of three judges in Doli Rani
Saha v. Union of India26, records that merely because the ticket
of a train journey was not found on the person of the deceased,
will not change his status as a bona fide passenger. It has been
held that the initial burden of the claimant can be satisfied by
way of an affidavit. Such an affidavit has indisputably been filed
by the claimant in the present facts. She states:
“[3]. My husband is expired in an untoward incident on
28.11.2015 my husband while traveling from Raipur to
Ahmedabad by 12834 Ahmedabad Howrah Mail was fell
down from the running train in between Khandbara to
Khatgaon on the Rly. Track in between K.M.129/1-2 of
Rly. Stn. Khandbara Dist Nandurbar (M.S.) and has
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
sustained the serious injuries and died [4] My husband
was possessing the valid Rly.travelling ticket. But,
unfortunately it was misplaced in the untoward incident.
… ... … [7] [A] That, on 28-11-2015, the deceased was
traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad.
The deceased was doing business of Catering at Anjar in
Gujrat State. He was going to Ahmedabad in connection
of his business work. Accordingly, he has purchased the
Rly. Ticket from Rly. Ticket from Raipur to Ahmedabad
and boarded in the train 12834 Ahmedabad Howrah
Mail. But, the said Rly. Ticket is misplaced along with the
travel bag of the deceased, in which he has kept the
ticket. The applicants have requested the Pol.authority to
search out the travel bag of the deceased and also the
Rly.ticket. But, till today there is no any information
about it from the Police”
21. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case
of Rina Devi (supra) and Lata (supra), the original
claimants/appellants have discharged burden to prove that the
deceased was travelling with valid tickets however, the said version
was not dislodged by the respondents by leading any oral evidence on
record. Therefore, finding given by the learned Tribunal on the point
that the deceased was the bonafide passenger, is not sustainable.
22. Further, it also emerges from the impugned judgment that the
learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon the DRM report. It also
emerges from the written statement that the defence of the
respondent is based on the DRM report. The untoward incident took
place on 08.08.2024, whereas the DRM report was filed on 31.01.2025.
As per the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward
Incidents) Rules, 2020, the report has to be prepared within a period
of 60 days. Thus, the report was not prepared within a stipulated time
and hence, it lost its validity. At this juncture, it would be appropriate
to refer judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of Sukhabhai
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
Nanjibhai Makwana (supra), wherein in para-11, the Apex Court has
observed as under:-
“11. Another relevant aspect to be noticed is that the claim
application was preferred by the claimants on 12.01.2018. It is
only after being served with a notice of the said proceedings that
the authorities entered into communication for having the
investigation report under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2003 prepared.
This report was ultimately prepared on 17.05.2018, which is about
seven months from the untoward incident. Delay in conducting the
inquiry could not be attributed to the claimants and the Railways
cannot seek to take advantage of the delay on their part in
preparing the investigation report. In Kalandi Charan Sahoo
(supra), absence of such inquiry being conducted immediately as
required under the Rules of 2003 was held to be a factor against
the Railways. There is no explanation on record furnished by the
Railways as to the reason for delayed preparation of the
investigation report. We are, therefore, inclined to ignore the said
investigation report. The same, therefore, cannot come in the way
of the claimants in receiving compensation.”
22.1 Thus, the defence taken on the basis of DRM report, is not
sustainable.
23. It has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent that the dead body of the deceased was found in the
crushed condition. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the
claim of the claimant that the untoward incident has not taken place
as narrated in the claim petition. The said contention is against the
record of the respondent itself. Therefore, the contention raised by
the learned counsel for the respondent, is not sustainable.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of
Kamrunnissa (supra) , wherein in para-7 of the judgment, the Apex
Court observed as under:-
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
“7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the
deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the
railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of
the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual
position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the
stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the
inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out
of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an
accident could have taken place while boarding a train”
25. The factual matrix of the case on hand is totally different. The
document placed on record itself reveals that the untoward incident
took place and therefore, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the
respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by
Delhi High Court in case of Omkar and another (supra), wherein the
High Court of Delhi has not believed the version of the claimant on the
ground that the dead body was found as lecreated and imputed at the
upper portion of the neck, but In light of the oral evidence as well as
documentary evidence on record, there is no iota of evidence that the
deceased was not traveling at the time of incident in the train. Thus,
ratio of the judgment is not application in the facts and circumstance
of the case.
26. In view of the above discussion, the finding written by the
learned Tribunal is not sustainable and therefore, the same is liable to
be reversed.
27. Thus, In view of the above observation, the captioned appeal
stands allowed and impugned judgment is set aside. Resultantly, the
claimants-appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lacs Only ) along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of untoward accident till its realization. The
respondent is directed to deposit the entire amount along with
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026
C/FA/3305/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240652742025)
interest, with the concerned learned RCT within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon depositing
the said amount of compensation, learned RCT shall disburse the
entire amount of compensation along with interest to the original
claimant/s after due verification and through recognized RTGS / NEFT
mode.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
SIDDHARTH
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:34:43 IST 2026