Gujarat High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Railways must prove self-inflicted injury with reliable evidence to deny compensation for an untoward incident.

UNION OF INDIA THRO GENERAL MANAGER vs PARAS DEOPUJAN PANDIT

Gujarat High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Railways must prove self-inflicted injury with reliable evidence to deny compensation for an untoward incident.. UNION OF INDIA THRO GENERAL MANAGER vs PARAS DEOPUJAN PANDIT. Gujarat High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Sarvjeetkumar Paras Pandit was travelling on Train No. 09465 with a valid e-ticket when he sustained injuries near Chhayapuri Railway Station; he died during treatment on 26 February 2023.

Source reference: para. 1–3, 6, 8–9

His family sought compensation, and the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded ₹8,00,000 with 9% simple interest from the date of the incident.

Source reference: para. 1–3, 6, 8–9

The Union of India appealed, contending that the deceased’s injuries were self-inflicted because he had pulled the alarm chain and jumped from the train to avoid criminal action.

Source reference: para. 1–3, 6, 8–9
02

Issues

Whether the Railway Administration established that the deceased’s injuries were self-inflicted, so as to defeat the compensation claim

Source reference: para. 6, 10–12

Whether the delayed DRM report could be relied upon against the claimants

Source reference: para. 9, 11–12
03

Law Applied

Under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, an accidental fall from a passenger train may constitute an “untoward incident”; Section 123(b) concerns the relevant dependants.

Source reference: para. 4

The Court also applied the principle stated in Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1056: where the Railway’s inquiry report is prepared belatedly and the delay is not attributable to the claimants, the Railway cannot take advantage of its own delay, and the report may be ignored.

Source reference: para. 11
04

Reasoning

The Railway’s witnesses did not establish that the deceased had been handed over to the RPF or that he jumped from the train to avoid prosecution.

Source reference: para. 11–12

The Station Master was not an eyewitness, and the RPF officer’s statement that the deceased had not been handed into his custody contradicted the Train Manager’s account.

Source reference: para. 11–12

The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of the Railway’s version.

Source reference: para. 11–12

It also noted that the incident occurred on 17 February 2023, while the DRM report was prepared on 11 September 2024, after the claim petition had been filed; applying Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana, the Court treated the delayed report as no bar to the claim.

Source reference: para. 11–12
05

Holding

The Court held that the Railway Administration had failed to establish that the deceased sustained self-inflicted injuries and found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s award.

It dismissed the appeal and directed the Tribunal to disburse the awarded amount with interest to the claimants after verification and deduction of any court-fee deficit.

Source reference: para. 12–14
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Railways Act, 19891

Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF

UNION OF INDIA THRO GENERAL MANAGERvsPARAS DEOPUJAN PANDIT

Gujarat High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment