BHAGWANBHAI DATTUBHAI PATIL (KALE) (SINCE DECED' THRU LEGAL HEIRS) vs UNION OF INDIA

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1143 of 2014
==========================================================
BHAGWANBHAI DATTUBHAI PATIL (KALE) (SINCE DECED' THRU LEGAL
HEIRS) & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 05/05/2026

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.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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. 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
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
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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. 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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. 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
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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)
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
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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.”
6. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Railway Tribunal has committed serious and manifest error.
Therefore, the present First Appeal deserves consideration.
Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order is hereby quashed and set aside. Record and
proceedings, if any, be transmitted back to the concerned
Court/Tribunal.
7. Consequently, the Civil Application, if any, does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Since the untoward accident occurred prior to the
Amendment of the Rules of 1990, and following the dictum
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of
India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019)3 SCC 410 , fixed
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded. The Railway
Administration is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today before
the learned Tribunal.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026

C/FA/1143/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
9. The original claimant, Bhagwanbhai Patil, has ex-
pired and is survived by four legal heirs, who are appellants in
the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Raval submits that
one of the said heirs has also expired.
10. In view of the above, the heirs of the deceased
Bhagwanbhai are permitted to file a separate application
before the learned Tribunal for disbursement of amount.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:07 IST 2026