BRAHMANE MANISHA SADANANDBHAI vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Case type
- FIRST APPEAL
- Decided on
- 13-03-2026
C/FA/3793/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3793 of 2025
==========================================================
BRAHMANE MANISHA SADANANDBHAI & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MONISH MALVIYA for MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/03/2026
ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
2. This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”) is directed against the judgment
and order dated 12.8.2025 passed by the leaned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case
No.OA (Iiu)/ADI/630/2025 (DT), whereby the the learned
Tribunal rejected claim of Rs.8 lakh plus interest on the
ground that the incident took place within the train
compartment does not fall within the untoward incident as
defined in section 123(c) or section 124 of the Act and no
liability of the Indian railway arose to pay compensation for
the death of deceased Sadanand Brahmane.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case is that deceased Sadanand
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:34 IST 2026
C/FA/3793/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
along with his friend were travelling from Bhusawal to Sutar
in train No.19008 Bhusawal – Surat Express with ticket
bearing No.UHQ-22886948 on 31.1.2024. Due to sudden jerk
and jolt in the train, the deceased was on the upper berth fell
on the ground of the train and died later on in the private
hospital.
4. The learned Tribunal referred to section 123(c) of the
Act and read section 123(c)(2) of the Act in isolation and came
to the conclusion that since the deceased fell down within the
train and died, he is not entitled to get any compensation.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, held that
object of the Act is for the benefit of the person for whom the
Act was made and should be given liberal and not the strict
interpretation. Section 123(c) of the Act on its plain reading
appears to be a beneficial piece of legislation. Section 123(c)
in fact widened the benefit of untoward accident and even if,
the railway is not involved in untoward accident, the railway
has been held liable to pay compensation if a passenger
travelling in the railway suffers injury or death.
6. The benefit is found to be in inclusive definition. In view
of section 123(c)(iii), even if a person is in waiting hall, clock
room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or
any other place within the precincts of a railway station and
received injury or suffered death, the railway is liable to pay
compensation.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:34 IST 2026
C/FA/3793/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
7. Section 123(c)(2) is adding one more reason and ground
for permitting the Tribunal to grant compensation. It cannot
be read in isolation. Section 124 of the Act, whereby extent of
liability has been defined, uses phrase “any part of train
carrying passenger”, which assumed significance and even if,
the passenger is travelling in the train, is entitled to
compensation if he received injury or death.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval relied upon the
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench in case of Union Of India Through The
General Manager, Northern Railway Versus Narendra
Kumar Gupta, 2014 ACJ 2242 , which involves absolute
identical facts.
9. In view of above, this Court does not subscribe non-
sensitive approach of the learned Tribunal and rather
deprecate such non-sensitive approach carried out by the
learned Tribunal to negate the claim of a person, who
admittedly, was travelling in the train and fell due to jerk and
jolt in the train and received death. A lot more can be
observed, but the Court restrained itself from observing
anything further.
10. For the reasons stated herein above, present First
Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order dated
12.8.2025 passed by the leaned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case No.OA
(Iiu)/ADI/630/2025 (DT) is hereby quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:34 IST 2026
C/FA/3793/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
11. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to
be decided afresh keeping in mind the aforesaid observations
as well as the judgment in case of Naresh Kumar Gupta
(supra) so also the provisions of section 123(c) of the Act in its
entirety and section 124 of the Act.
12. Time limit of eight weeks to complete the matter is fixed
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:34 IST 2026