SAMPATIA W/O SHOKHILAL KOLI vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1607 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=====================================================
SAMPATIA W/O SHOKHILAL KOLI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. MANISH MALAVIYA for MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and
award passed in Case No. OA – 0700197 by the learned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad by which the
claimant’s claim application was dismissed, the claimant has
preferred the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The parties are referred to as per their original status
before the learned trial Court.
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 On 12.06.2003, deceased – Shokhilal Koli was
travelling in a train from Godhra to UP and he accidentally fell
due to sudden rush, jerk and jolt of the train.
3.2 The claimant filed a claim application stating that the
deceased was traveling with a valid travelling ticket and was a
bona fide passenger, but same was lost in the incident.
3.3 The usual contentions were raised by the railway
administration in their reply that the deceased was traveling
without a ticket and was not a bona fide passenger, and the
incident, which took the life of the deceased, does not fall within
the provision of Section 123(c)(2) of ‘the Act’.
3.4 It is further contended that as per the memo of
Station Superintendent, Derol and Inquest Panchnama that Loco
Pilot of Train No.9165 informed that one unknown person had
fallen down between KM No.444/24-26 between Derol and
Bakrol.
3.5 The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, after framing
the issues, denied the claim on the ground that the claimant has
not specifically mentioned the train number and in affidavit, the
claimant attempted to change his version. Moreover, in absence
of any ticket either recovered from the body of the deceased or
from the place where the Inquest Panchnama was prepared or
not produced during the claim proceedings, claimant hopelessly
failed to prove that deceased was bonafide passenger.
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Consequently, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed
the claim petition.
3.6 Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the
appellant is before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri appearing
for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Manish Malaviya for
learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin appearing for the
respondent - Railway Administration.
5. At the outset, what is noticeable that as per the
memo (Exhibit-A-2) and even as per the case of the Railway
Administration, the Loco Pilot has seen deceased falling from the
running train between KM No.444/24-26 between Derol and
Bakrol. He was travelling in the Sabarmati Express Train
No.9165. This factual aspects, remains undenied, are sufficient
to prove untowards incident.
6. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal to negate the
claim of the claimant, observed as under:-
“...Respondent argued that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger as the applicant did not place on record the
ticket by which the deceased was travelling on the fateful
day. He further argued that it is a general tendency to get
compensation on the false plea that the ticket was lost after
falling down from the train. Even assuming for the sake of
argument that the deceased was holding the ticket, mere
holing the ticket in itself is not sufficient to jump to the
conclusion that at the time of incident the deceased was
traveling in a passenger carrying train.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Therefore, in this case it cannot fall within the purview
of untoward incident as claimed by the claimants. It
transpires from the above discussion that the applicant has
not come out with clean hands before the Tribunal. There is
total variance with the pleadings as well as evidence
produced on record. Therefore, for want of proper evidence
on record in support of claim of the petitioner, I am unable to
hold that the deceased was travelling as a passenger and
fallen down from the train and became a victim of untoward
incident. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts on record,
I am of the opinion that the present petitioner fails to
establish above two issues accordingly, I decide issue No. 1
& 2 in negative.”
7. Apt to note that, the aforesaid finding is diagonally
contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajni & Another vs. Union of India , reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 986 , whereby the Supreme Court held that, mere
absence of ticket with the deceased does not negate the claim of
a bona fide passenger. The relevant finding of the Supreme Court
in paragraph 9, 11, 12, 13 & 14 reads as under:-
“9. The legal position is not in dispute: Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault regime for
"untoward incidents", but compensation remains predicated
on the victim being a "passenger". For present purposes,
Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A would be relevant in the
background of same having been denied by railway
authorities. It reads as follows:
"Explanation (ii) 'passenger' includes 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."
(emphasis supplied)
In Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra), this Court affirmed
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
that compensation under Sections 124/124-A is payable
"whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault"
and clarified two facets namely: (i) the regime is one of strict
(no-fault) liability, with exceptions confined to the proviso to
Section 124-A; and (ii) mere non-recovery of a ticket from the
victim's person is not ipso facto fatal where the claimant
lays a credible prima facie foundation, upon which the onus
may shift to the Railways. The central inquiry, therefore, is
whether the appellants had first discharged the threshold
burden of proving the fact that deceased was a bonafide
passenger of the Train No. 12465 (Indore to Ujjain) so as to
trigger any shifting of onus on the railway authorities.
xxx xxx xxx
11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of
India (2024) 9 SCC 656, 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
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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)
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
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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. This view also gets
fortified by the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case
of Kamukayi and Others vs. Union of India and Others
(2023) 19 SCC 116, 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
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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)
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.”
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
8. In view of the above, the issue raised in the present
first appeal is no more res-integra . When the deceased
admittedly fell from the running train, it is an untoward
incident, and the claimant came out with the affidavit that the
deceased was traveling with the ticket. Thus, the burden gets
shifted upon the other side to disprove the aspect. In the present
case, the Railway Administration has failed to bring any evidence
on record to prove the fact that the deceased was traveling
without the ticket.
9. Therefore, it proves that the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal has taken a hyper-technical approach to deny the
claim. Such approach deserves to be set aside.
10. In view of the above, appeal deserves to be allowed
and accordingly it is allowed . Consequently, the impugned
judgment and award is quashed and set aside.
11. Resultantly, the claimants are entitled to get the
compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with 9% interest from the date of
incident till its realization or Rs.8 lakhs, flat, whichever is
higher.
12. The Railway Administration is directed to deposit the
entire decreetal amount before the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal within a period of 06 weeks from today.
13. Upon deposit of the amount, the same shall be paid
to the claimant by way of RTGS/NEFT after due verification and
identification.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026
C/FA/1607/2013 (GJHC240393492013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
14. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any,
to the concerned Court forthwith.
15. Connected CA, if any, do not survive.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:20 IST 2026