MAHESHKUMAR MAFATLAL PARMAR (FATHER OF DECEASED PASSENGER) vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1760 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAHESHKUMAR MAFATLAL PARMAR (FATHER OF DECEASED
PASSENGER) & 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
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellants-
original claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2024
passed in Claim Application No.OA(IIU)/ADI/2023/0063 by
learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench,
Ahmedabad (herein after referred to as the “learned RCT”).
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
2.1 On 10.08.2018, the deceased, Naman Maheshkumar @
Maheshbhai Parmar @ Parikh was travelling from Nadiad
to Mehsana via Ahmedabad Railway Station in Train No.
69115 Vadodara MEMU with a valid journey ticket and
was travelling in the general compartment of the train.
Owing to the heavy overcrowding in the compartment, he
had no option, but to stand near the entrance gate during
the journey. While the train was proceeding between KM
Nos. 480/26 and 480/28, between Barejadi-Nandej and
Geratpur Railway Stations, the deceased, due to a sudden
jerk and jolt of the train coupled with the heavy rush and
push of passengers, lost his balance and accidentally fell
from the running train. As a result, he was dragged for
some distance and sustained multiple grievous injuries.
Thereafter, he remained lying unconscious on the railway
track between KM Nos. 480/26 and 480/28. After some
time, upon regaining semi-consciousness, he attempted
to get up, but was unable to do so. While sitting on the
track and trying to contact the applicants, he was run
over by Train No. 12009 Shatabdi Express. Consequently,
he sustained severe crush injuries and died on the spot.
The Loco Pilot of the Shatabdi Express informed the
Station Superintendent, Geratpur about the incident. The
journey ticket of the deceased was lost during the course
of the accident.
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
2.2 The notice/summon of the Claim Petition was duly served
upon the opponent. The opponent-Union of India
appeared and filed Written Statement, denying the
contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of
the claim petition.
2.3 Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the
learned Tribunal framed the following issues for
determination.
i. Whether the deceased was travelling on
a valid Railway journey ticket and was
bonafide passenger of the train in
question at relevant train?
ii. Whether the deceased met with an
untoward incident due to fall from
passenger carrying train, suffered
injuries and died as a result thereof an
the present case is covered under the
definition of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railway Act, 1989?
iii. Whether the applicants are the sole
dependent of the deceased and are
entitled to compensation as claimed, as
per Section 123(b) of the Railway Act,
1989?
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
iv. To what Relief?
2.4 Having considered the oral as well as documentary
evidence on record, and having considered the
submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the
learned RCT dismissed the claim application.
2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned
judgment and award, the claimants -appellants herein
preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellants-claimants vehemently submitted that on
10.08.2018, the deceased, who was the son of the claimants-
appellants, was travelling in the general compartment of Train
No. 69115 Vadodara MEMU. Owing to the heavy overcrowding
in the train, he had no option but to stand near the entrance
gate of the compartment during the journey. It is submitted
that while the train was proceeding between KM Nos. 480/26
and 480/28, between Barejadi-Nandej and Geratpur Railway
Stations, due to a sudden jerk and jolt of the train, coupled
with the heavy rush and push of passengers, the deceased lost
his balance and accidentally fell from the running train. As a
result, he was dragged for some distance and sustained
multiple grievous injuries. Thereafter, he remained lying
unconscious on the railway track between KM Nos. 480/26 and
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
480/28. After some time, upon regaining semi-consciousness,
he attempted to get up but was unable to do so. While sitting
on the track and trying to contact the claimants-appellants, he
was run over by Train No. 12009 Shatabdi Express.
Consequently, he sustained severe crush injuries and,
resultantly, succumbed to the same.
5. It is submitted that the deceased son of the claimants-
appellants had lost his purse, journey ticket and cash
amounting to approximately Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/- in the
course of the accident. It is submitted that the learned RCT
rejected the claim petition on three grounds: firstly, that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no journey ticket
was recovered from his body; secondly, that the learned RCT
placed undue reliance upon the report of the Divisional Railway
Manager (DRM) and came to the wrong conclusion that the
incident was the result of suicidal act.
6. It is submitted that the learned RCT committed an error
in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
The claimants-appellants had specifically pleaded in the claim
petition that the journey ticket was lost in the accident. It is
submitted that the father of the deceased viz. Maheshkumar
Mafatlal Parmar, in his affidavit, categorically deposed that his
son was a bonafide passenger travelling in the said train. More
particularly, in Paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit, he stated that
his son was travelling from Nadiad to Mehsana with a valid and
proper railway journey ticket.
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
7. It is submitted that the learned RCT ought to have
accepted and believed the version put forth by the claimants-
appellants. It is submitted that once it had been categorically
stated on oath by way of an affidavit that the deceased was
travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger, the learned
RCT ought to have accepted the said testimony and held that
the claimants-appellants had duly discharged their burden of
proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is
submitted that the upon such burden being discharged by the
claimants-appellants, the onus shifted upon the respondent-
Railways to establish that the deceased was not travelling as a
bonafide passenger. However, the respondent failed to
discharge the said burden by leading any cogent or convincing
evidence. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajni
& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986]
and Lata v. Union of India & Anr. [2026 INSC 715] .
8. It is submitted that the deceased son of the claimants-
appellants had fallen from the running train; however, the
learned RCT, relying upon the report of the Divisional Railway
Manager (DRM), held that the death was the result of a suicidal
act. It is submitted that the learned RCT placed undue reliance
upon the DRM report dated 15.06.2023 and on that basis,
rejected the claim of the claimants-appellants. It is submitted
that the learned RCT ought not to have relied upon the DRM
report, as the same was not furnished within the stipulated
period of 60 days. The untoward incident had occurred on
10.08.2018, whereas the DRM report came to be filed only on
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
15.06.2023 in violation of the prescribed Rules. It is submitted
that, thereafter, on the basis of the said DRM report, the
written statement came to be filed on 03.10.2023. Hence, the
written statement was neither dependable nor reliable and
ought not to have been relied upon by the learned RCT. In
support of the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Vani Hirendbhai Modi & Ors. v. Union of India,
passed in First Appeal No. 3263 of 2024, Kokilaben
Dhanji Thakore & Ors. v. Union of India passed in First
Appeal No.292 of 2020 and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs.
General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur
[2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 63040]. Having placed the reliance upon
aforesaid judgments, he submitted that the captioned appeal
deserved to be allowed.
9. Per contra, Mr.Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently submitted
that the untoward incident, as alleged by the claimants-
appellants was not possible. It is submitted that, according to
the case of the claimants-appellants, on 10.08.2018, their son
was travelling in the MEMU train and fell from the train at
about 11:27 hrs. Thereafter, another goods train passed on the
same track at about 11:57 hrs. It is submitted that, had the son
of the claimants-appellants fallen from the MEMU train, he
would have been crushed by the goods train. However,
thereafter, the Shatabdi Express train arrived at about 12:40
hrs. and while the deceased was allegedly sitting on the
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
railway track, he was run over by the said train. It is submitted
that the driver of the Shatabdi Express had blown the horn;
however, the deceased did not move from the railway track
and was consequently run over by the train. It is submitted
that the respondent had examined the driver of the Shatabdi
Express viz. Rajkishor Dixit, who was driving the said train at
the time of the untoward incident. In his deposition before the
learned RCT, he stated that, when the train approached
Geratpur Railway Station, he saw a person sitting on the
railway track and, therefore, blew the horn. At the relevant
time, the speed of the train was approximately 130 km per
hour; therefore, the train could not be stopped and
consequently, the person sitting on the railway track was run
over by the train.
10. It is submitted that considering the conduct of the
deceased, it is the case of suicide. Therefore, learned RCT has
rightly rejected the claim petition. It is submitted that there is
no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, the captioned
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. In rebuttal, Mr.Rathin Raval, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of claimants-appellants herein vehemently submitted
that the version of the driver of the Shatabdi Express was not
supported by the documentary evidence available on record. It
is submitted that it was not the case of the respondent that the
deceased had committed suicide. Even R.W.1, in his cross-
examination, admitted that he could not state whether the son
of the claimants-appellants had been sitting on the railway
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
track with an intention to commit suicide or he was injured.
Therefore, it is submitted that the learned RCT had committed
a grave error in rejecting the claim petition.
12. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates
for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be
noted that the claimants-appellants have challenged the
impugned judgment on the ground of rejection of claim
petition preferred by the claimants-appellants.
13. So far as the first contention regarding the non-
availability of the ticket and the status of the deceased as a
bona-fide passenger of the train is concerned, it is pertinent to
note that the claimants-appellants, in the claim application
preferred before the learned RCT under Section 16 of the Act
specifically pleaded that the details of the ticket were not
known, as the railway journey ticket had been lost along with a
pocket comb, handkerchief, purse and cash amounting to
approximately Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/-. The father of the
deceased viz. Maheshkumar Mafatlal Parmar also filed his
affidavit in examination-in-chief, wherein, in Paragraph Nos. 4
& 14, he deposed as under:
“4. On 10.08.2018, my deceased son Naman was traveling
from Nadiad to Mehsana viz. Ahmedabad with a valid and
proper Railway Traveling Ticket (Ex. Nadiad to Mehsana via.
Ahmedabad dated 10.08.2018, Second Class by traveling in
the general compartment of the train bearing no.69115 viz.
Vadodara – Ahmedabad Memu.
14. It is true that my deceased son’s railway traveling ticket
is lost along with a pocket comb, a handkerchief, a purse, a
cash of Rs.1500/- to Rs.1600/- and not found after this
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
untoward incident till date.”
14. By filing an affidavit in examination-in-chief, the initial
burden of establishing that the son of the claimants-appellants
was a bona fide passenger has been discharged. Thereafter,
the onus shifted upon the respondent to establish the contrary.
The respondent examined the driver of the Shatabdi Express
viz. Rajkishor Dixit. However, in his deposition, he nowhere
stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the
said train. The panchnama of the place of the accident has also
been placed on record. The said panchnama reveals that no
noticeable article was found at the place of the accident. Mere
non-recovery of the journey ticket would not, by itself, lead to
the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger. Thus, upon scanning the pleadings and the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record, I am of the
considered view that the respondent has miserably failed to
rebut the claimants-appellants' case or to establish that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the train.
15. In the case of Rajni (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, in
Paragraph No.16, has observed as under:-
“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
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in
question was not rebutted.”
16. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lata (supra),
in Paragraph No.19, has observed 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 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.
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
… ... … [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”
17. Thus, considering the ratio laid-down by Hon’ble Apex
Court in cases of Rajni (supra) and Lata (supra), the finding
returned by the learned RCT that the deceased was not the
bonafide passenger is not sustainable.
18. The learned RCT has placed reliance upon the DRM
report. The untoward incident occurred on 10.08.2018,
whereas the DRM report came to be filed only on 15.06.2023.
It is evident from the written statement filed by the respondent
that the same was based solely upon the DRM report, which
came to be prepared after a period of about 5 years from the
date of untoward incident took place. It also emerges from the
record that the written-statement filed by the respondent is
only based on the report of DRM, which itself is not dependable
and reliable.
19. The Co-oridinate bench of this Court in case of Vani
Hirendbhai Modi, In Paragraph No.9, has observed as under:-
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
“Before I examine the evidence on record, let me observe
that the accident took place on 05.10.2022; Claim petition
before the Railway Claim Tribunal was filed on 06.12.2022
and DRM report was filed on 24.02.2023. In view of Rule
7(4) of the of the Railways Passengers (Manner of
investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020, DRM
report has to be filed within 60 days of incident. What
further appears that the written statement filed by the
railway administration is subsequent to filing of DRM report.
Written statement dated 28.03.2023 being a subsequent to
DRM report, is totally based upon the DRM report. In view of
aforesaid rule, since DRM report is not acceptable or
dependable to decide the dispute, consequently written
statement also becomes undependable to decide the issue.
What could be inferred is that the written statement is
nothing but a replica of DRM report. When DRM report itself
is not admissible, written statement based upon the DRM
report loses its significance.”
20. Thus, the written statement, being wholly based upon the
DRM report, cannot be considered dependable or reliable.
Therefore, the learned RCT committed an error in placing
reliance upon the said DRM report.
21. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalandi Charan
Sahoo (supra), in Paragraph No.5, has observed as under:-
“5. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us
in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. After
hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not
even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the
fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to
the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989,
which warrants payment of compensation whenever
untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has
occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part
of the Railway administration. Going by the aforesaid
provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no
inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted
immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation
payable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. We
are informed that, at the material time, compensation
payable under the said provision was Rs.4 lakhs.”
22. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the manner of occurrence, as narrated by the
claimants-appellants in the claim petition, was not possible. It
was vehemently contended that, if the son of the claimants-
appellants had fallen from the MEMU train, thereafter, a goods
train had passed on the very same track. Therefore, the
deceased ought to have been run over by the goods train and
not by the Shatabdi Express, which subsequently arrived at the
place of the incident at about 12:40 hours. It was also
vehemently contended that the son of the claimants-
appellants had committed suicide. Learned counsel for the
respondent, therefore, sought to establish that the incident
was not an untoward incident, but was a case of suicide. In
order to appreciate the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, it would be
appropriate to examine the documents produced by the
parties before the learned RCT. The panchnama of the place of
the accident has been placed on record. The pre-particulars of
the untoward incident have also been placed on record. The
said document was prepared by the Railway Police. In the said
report, in Column Nos.2 & 13, the RPF has noted as under:-
NO. Particulars Details
2 Nature of untoward incident (please
specifiy – (a) accidental fall (b) bomb
blast (c) rioting (d) shootout (e) arson (f)
dacoity/robbery (g) violent attack (h)
Run Over
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
terrorist act / attack (i) run over (j)
tresspassing (k) suicide (l) others.
30. If there is no conclusive evidence
Run Over
regarding cause of incident then officer
of Force incident of writing “fallen down”
, should state relations not known.
23. Thus, the report of the Inspector of RAL would suggest
that the incident was not a case of suicide, but a case of the
deceased being run over by the train, which would fall within
the ambit of an untoward incident. In this regard, Rule 4 & 6
read with Form-II of the Railway Passengers (Manner of
Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020, is relevant.
The relevant provision of Rules 4 & 6 read as under:-
“4. Duties of Station Superintendent, Guard, Conductor
and Train Ticket Examiner in charge of the train:-
“(1) If an untoward incident occurs at the station, the
concerned Station Superintendent shall immediately
arrange for medical assistance to the injured passengers
and report such incident within twenty-four hours of the
occurrence to the Divisional Security Commissioner in
FORM-I.
(2) If an untoward incident occurs in the mid-section, the
Guard of the concerned train shall inform the Station
Superintendent of the nearest station who shall perform
the duties referred to in sub-rule (1).
(3) In case the Guard is injured in an untoward incident, the
Conductor of the concerned train shall inform the Station
Superintendent of the nearest station who shall perform
the duties referred to in sub-rule (1).
(4) In case both the Guard and the Conductor are injured in
an untoward incident, the Train Ticket Examiner in-charge
shall inform the Station Superintendent of the nearest
station who shall perform the duties referred to in sub-rule
(1).
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
(5) If an untoward incident occurs in mid-section, in the
absence of officers mentioned in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4),
the Station Superintendent, if it comes to his notice, shall
perform the duties referred to in sub-rule (1).”
6. Conducting of investigation and submission of report
by the Force: (1) On receipt of information under Rule 5, an
officer of the Force, shall carry out the investigation and shall -
(i) Obtain copies of the inquest report, post-mortem report
and Jama Talashi report from the police investigating the
incident.
(ii) Obtain a copy of the report specified under clause (ii) of
Rule 5;
(iii) Obtain information about the untoward incident in
Form-2;
(iv) Record statement of additional witnesses, if so
required;
(v) Collect any other evidence required by the
circumstances of the case.
(2) The officer of the Force shall complete the investigation within
sixty days and submit a report to the authority specified under
sub-rule (2) of Rule 9.”
24. Further, the inquest panchnama prepared under Section
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been duly
proved on record. The contents of Column Nos. 9 and 11 of the
said panchnama are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Sr.No.Question Answer
9. Had the deceased suffered from recent
illness if so? What? State duration and
describe the illness as far as know
-
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
11. Is death supposed to have been natural
causes, accident, suicide or homicide? State
briefly and plainly and suspicious that may
exist and why”
Due to Train Accident.
25. Thus, from the inquest panchnama, it is evident that the
occurrence of the untoward incident was neither doubtful nor
was it stated therein that the incident was a case of suicide.
On the contrary, the documents produced on record by the
respondent itself indicate that the incident was an untoward
incident. It appears that, only after the DRM report came to be
filed after a period of about five years, in clear violation of the
prescribed Rules, the respondent shifted its stand and
introduced the theory of suicide. Thus, the subsequently
introducing the theory of suicide appears to be nothing but an
intentional attempt on the part of the respondent to defeat the
legitimate claim of the claimants-appellants. It is not in dispute
that the son of the appellants-claimants crushed under the
Satapdi Express. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
learned RCT is perverse, contrary to the material available on
record and wholly based upon DRM report, which was prepared
in sheer violation of Rules and inordinate delay of about 5
years, cannot be sustained.
26. Thus, In view of the above discussion, 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 incident till its realization. The respondent is directed
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1760/2024 (GJHC240294312024) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
to deposit the said amount along with interest, with the
concerned learned RCT within a period of six 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)
GIRISH
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 18:45:45 IST 2026