Gujarat High Court
Muktaben Premjibhai Koli vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3733 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2018
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3733 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
MUKTABEN PREMJIBHAI KOLI & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MAHESH B SHAH(1053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION
1. Present Civil Application is filed by the original applicants seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
Page 1 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined "a. That your LORDSHIP be pleased to kindly allow the present civil application in the interest of justice.
b. That your LORDSHIP be pleased to award the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the incident till the date of payment (realization) c. To grant such other and further relief or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. It appears that the present Civil Application has been filed by the original applicants seeking entitlement to the revised compensation in accordance with the Gazette of India Notification GSR 1165(E) dated 22.12.2016, whereby the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were amended and brought into force with effect from 01.01.2017.
3. Heard Mr.Paresh Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent- Union of India.
4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants, has submitted that the present Civil Application for amendment has been filed during the pendency of the appeal, as a subsequent amendment came into force whereby the amount of compensation for untoward incidents was enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- with effect from 22.12.2016.
4.1 Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants has relied and referred to on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and submitted that in the said decision Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the said amendment. He has also relied upon and referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Harkesh and others and urge that present application may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the same may not be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the subsequent amendment which came into force pertains to the revised rules, and the appellants-original applicants are not entitled to its benefit, as the date of the accident is much prior to the date of the amendment. He has also pointed out that the decision of the Railway Tribunal was rendered in the year 2012, whereas the amendment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-original applicants came into effect in 2016, and since it has no retrospective effect, the present Civil Application deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have perused the averments made in the application and the relevant material produced on record as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rina Devi (supra) and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Harkesh (supra).
7. Considering the facts of the case, the averments made in the application, the decisions referred to hereinabove, and the subsequent developments under the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the present Civil Application deserves to be Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined allowed. Accordingly, the present Civil Application is hereby allowed. Necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the First Appeal shall be carried out accordingly.
ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL
1. Present First Appeal is filed by the appellants - Original Applicant Nos. 1 to 6 under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2012 in Case No. OA 0300004 passed by the Railway Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the "Tribunal) whereby the tribunal has rejected the case filed by the present appellants-original claimants.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 06.09.2002, the deceased, Premjibhai Harjibhai Koli, was travelling in Train No. 6338 Ernakulam-Okha Down Express in the general compartment from Surendranagar to Rajkot Railway Station. During the course of the journey, he accidentally fell down from the running train, sustained serious injuries, and subsequently succumbed to the same during the course of treatment.
2.1 It is the case of the appellants - original claimants - that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger, as he was holding a valid and proper second-class railway ticket. However, at the time of the accident, the said ticket could not be recovered either from the body of the deceased or from his personal belongings. Therefore, the appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition being Case Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined No. OA 0300004 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In support of their claim, they produced relevant documentary evidence and also filed an affidavit to that effect.
2.2 The said claim application was opposed by the respondents - original opponents - through the General Manager, by filing a written statement wherein they denied, in toto, all the averments made in the claim petition. The opponents further contended that the case does not fall within the purview of the provisions of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, as the incident in question cannot be treated as an "untoward incident" as claimed by the appellants. It was also contended that the legal heirs of the deceased had failed to produce a valid railway ticket before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
2.3 On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the Tribunal framed the issues as referred to in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment and recorded its findings accordingly. The appellants produced documentary evidence at Exhibits A-1 to A-20 and also examined appellant No. 1 - Smt. Muktaben Premjibhai Koli - in support of their case. On the other hand, the respondent-Railway Administration examined one Mr. Ghanshyam C. Jadeja, Station Master at Than Railway Station, as Respondent Witness No. 1.
2.4 While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal observed that the ticket was not produced before it, nor was any cogent or material evidence adduced by the original claimants in support of their contention that the deceased had fallen from Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined a running train. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the contention raised by the appellants-original claimants and dismissed the claim application. However, the Tribunal noted that Diary Entry at Exhibit A-1, being a copy of the memo entry made by the Station Master of Surendranagar Railway Station, recorded that one unknown person had been run over by Train No. 6338 DN Ernakulam-Okha Express near Gate No. 73, between Than and Lakhamanchi Railway Stations. This information was received over the phone from the Control Room of the Station Master at Than, and the memo was issued based on that communication.
2.5 The inquest panchnama at Exhibit A-2, the diary and photograph recovered from the body found in the pocket of the deceased, the panchnama of the place of the accident at Exhibit A-3, and the identification panchnama at Exhibit A-4 reveal that the deceased was identified by his father-in-law, Hemubhai Ravjibhai Koli. The said Hemubhai Koli, who was on duty as a gate man at Gate No. 73, stated in Exhibit A-6 that when the Ernakulam-Okha Express train passed, he had closed the gate for its passage, and upon reopening the gate, he found one person lying in a mutilated condition near the railway track. Considering these and other documentary evidences referred to by the Tribunal while deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2, as discussed in the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal refused to entertain the claim and consequently rejected the application for compensation.
2.6 After hearing the arguments advanced by the respective parties and upon considering the oral as well as documentary Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that the appellants - original claimants - had failed to establish their case by producing cogent and reliable evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the claimants were unable to prove that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger holding a valid railway ticket for travel in Train No. 6338 Ernakulam-Okha Down Express from Surendranagar to Rajkot.
2.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal, the appellants - original claimants have filed present appeal.
3. Heard Mr.Paresh J. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent- Union of India.
3.1 Mr. P. J. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original claimants, has contended that once the accidental death of the deceased was proved by cogent and reliable evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition and passed an award accordingly. He has further submitted that, since the appellants had filed their affidavits and placed sufficient material on record, the burden of proof thereafter shifted upon the respondents - original opponents - to disprove the same. It is also his contention that under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the respondent-Railway Authorities were under a statutory obligation to conduct an inquiry into the alleged untoward incident. However, in the present case, no such Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined inquiry was carried out by the Railway Administration as contemplated under the said Rules. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal are required to be quashed and set aside.
3.2 Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, has further contended that, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden lies upon the passenger to show that he was travelling with a valid railway ticket. He submitted that while the primary obligation to prove such fact rests on the passenger, an exception arises in cases where the deceased is proved to have died in the course of railway travel and his body is subsequently taken into custody by the Railway Police. In such circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Railway Administration to adduce evidence showing that the deceased was travelling without a valid ticket, and only upon such proof would the onus shift back to the claimants.
3.3 Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that in the present case, the Railway Administration has failed to establish that the deceased was travelling without a valid ticket, and therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous, illegal, and unjust. He has also submitted that by filing the affidavit of appellant No. 1, the appellants had duly discharged the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid railway ticket.
3.4 Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Page 8 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India, reported in 2025 ACJ 507, and submitted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering a similar issue, has held that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced compensation as per the amended Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, even if the accident occurred prior to the amendment, provided the appeal or proceedings were pending when the amendment came into force. Relying on the said principle, he submitted that the appellants herein are also entitled to the revised compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
3.5 Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, relies upon the following decisions:-
(1) In the case of Asha Rani Das vs Union of India reported in 2010 ACJ 2777, (2) In the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another vs. General Manager - South East Central Railway reported in 2018 ACJ 1460, (3) In the case of Manubhai Punamchand Upadhay and another vs. The Indian Railways and another reported in 1996 (1) GLH 347 (4) In the case of Jameela and others vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (ACJ) 2453, (5) In the case of Vaishali vs. Union of India reported in 2011 ACJ 106, 3.6 In view of the above referred facts and in view of the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, Mr. Metha, learned counsel for the appellants urges before the Court that present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal may be Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined quashed and set aside and the claim of the appellants original claimants may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Railway Authority, has submitted that the appellants have failed to establish the initial facts before the Tribunal, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, and hence, the present appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
4.1 Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the fact that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket is required to be proved by producing cogent and material evidence, including the ticket itself. However, in the present case, the ticket was not produced by the appellants-original claimants before the Tribunal, and therefore, the appellants failed to establish the said fact. It is contended that the initial burden to prove that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger was not discharged by the appellants-original applicants, and hence, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order rejecting the claim application, which is in consonance with the settled principles of law, and there is no necessity to interfere with the same in the present appeal.
4.2 Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that under Sections 123 and 124 of the 1989 Act, it is the primary duty of the claimants to produce all relevant materials to establish that the deceased was travelling as a Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined bona fide passenger in the railway and that the death occurred due to an untoward incident. For that purpose, they are required to produce relevant facts and cogent evidence before the Tribunal, including the ticket on which the deceased was travelling.
4.3 Mr. Shukla, learned counsel has further submitted that, in the present case, the claimants have failed to discharge this initial burden, and therefore, the onus cannot be shifted upon the respondent-Railway Authority to prove the contrary. Hence, under such circumstances, the present appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. However, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, is unable to controvert the legal contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the settled principles of law laid down in various judicial pronouncements referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants. He has further fairly submitted that, as per the mandate under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the railway authority has not conducted any investigation or inquiry, and no such record is available in the railway records.
5. I have perused the material and documents available on record. I have also gone through the relevant facts as well as the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
6. The issues arise for consideration before this Court is as under:-
Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
1. Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order rejecting the claim petition of the appellants solely on the ground that there was no material to show that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger in Train No. 6338 DN Ernakulam-Okha Express from Surendranagar to Rajkot and that he sustained injuries and died near Than Railway Station?
2. Whether the appellants-original claimants have proved and established the factum of the accident by producing any cogent and material evidence?
3. Whether the appellants entitled to get any amount of compensation for untimely death of the deceased.
4. Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal is in consonance with the settled principle of law or not?
8. In view of the above issues, it is necessary to first refer to the facts of the case. On 06.09.2002, when the deceased was travelling in Train No. 6338 DN Ernakulam-Okha Express from Surendranagar to Rajkot, he accidentally fell down near Than Railway Station, resulting in his body being severed in the said incident. This fact was corroborated by the independent evidence of the Station Master, who had recorded the memo, as well as by the testimony of the gate-
man of Than Railway Station. The said incident also stood corroborated by the post-mortem report and other relevant documentary evidence produced by the appellants.
Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
9. Along with the affidavit filed by appellant No. 1, the appellants have proved the factum of the untoward incident that occurred near Than Railway Station. In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, once the occurrence of the untoward incident is established, the burden shifts upon the respondents to prove otherwise. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous and unsustainable in law.
10. Though, the preliminary inquiry or investigation was contemplated under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of untoward Incident) Rules 2003, the railway authority has not conducted the inquiry or investigation as contemplated under the statute, and there was no evidence worth the name produced by the railway authority. Meaning thereby, the onus was shifted upon the railway authority as it was unable to establish and prove this factum of untoward incident. It was an admitted fact that the dead body was found on the railway track. Herein, it is not the case that the deceased has committed a suicide or it is self- implicated injury found on the body of the deceased.
11. In view of the above, it is appropriate at this stage, to refer the observations with regard to Section 123 and 124 of the 1989 Act, made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) which read as under:-
"13. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We consider it necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the 1989 Act :Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined "S.123. Definitions. - In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1[(c) "untoward incident"
means-- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.] S.124. Extent of liabililty- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty.
S.124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident - When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes--
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) 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."
12. So far as burden of proof when body found on railway premises is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the said decision as under:-
"Re: (iii) Burden of Proof When Body Found on Railway Premises - Definition of Passenger :
17.1 Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a 'passenger'.
In Raj Kumari (supra) referring to the scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the railway administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a 24 bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed as follows :
"3(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the railways and not on the claimants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act & Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case where deceased may have died at a place where he could not have otherwise been unless he was travelling in the train and in such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take note of a judgment of a leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported as Pyar Singh Vs. Union of India 2007 (8) AD Del. 262 which holds that it is the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to this view and I am bound by Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined this judgment and not by the ratio of the case of Leelamma (supra)."
17.2 In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi (supra) same view was taken by a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act as follows :
"22. So, from Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the applicants, having come to the court asserting some facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of A.W.1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts, requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal."
17.3 In Kamrunnissa (supra), from the circumstances appearing in that case it was held that there was no evidence that the deceased had purchased the ticket. In the given fact situation of that case, this Court inferred that it was not a case of 'untoward incident' but a case of run over. It was observed :
Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined "7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach.
This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train.
8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere railway station."
13. Though, the deceased was not found with the valid ticket, however, under circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed as under:-
"17.4 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"
14. It is also appropriate to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha (supra) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined "10. The appellant (AW-1) deposed in support of the claim, together with her cousin, Deepak Saha (AW-2). Both witnesses were cross examined. The railways did not produce either oral or documentary evidence. After considering the material on record and hearing the parties, the Tribunal found as follows:
a. No ticket was found with the deceased, whose body was found on 8 September 2003;
b. Neither AW-1 nor AW-2 were eye witnesses to the death; c. There was nothing else on record to show that the deceased boarded the train; and d. The appellant was required to produce the best evidence but did not do so. The report of the IO was not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 191 of the Railways Act.
The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased died as a consequence of falling off the train. It found that compensation was therefore not payable to the appellant. It later dismissed the application for review of its judgment on the ground that no new facts were placed on record which would warrant a review. The Tribunal also observed that the secret witnesses examined by the IO were not examined.
11. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Tribunal. By its judgment dated 7 January 2014, the High Court held that:
a. From the material available on record, it appeared that the body of the deceased was found lying near the railway track. However, nothing on record indicated that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on the train;
b. The post-mortem report indicated that the death took place between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before the conduct of the post-mortem, which was on 9 September 2003 at 1:30 pm. From this, it cannot conclusively be held that the deceased died on 5 September 2003; and c. The report filed by the IO is not supported by substantive material. Since he had no personal knowledge regarding the cause of death, his report cannot be accepted as evidence of Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the fact that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on the train in question.
The Court therefore concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on 5 September 2023 on the train in question."
15. In the case of Vaishali vs Union of India (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"10. Considering the rulings cited, I think, submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, are convincing to hold that the Railway -respondent had failed to adduce adequate evidence before the Tribunal to discharge its required onus on the basis of available evidence, such as, spot panchnama, PM notes, inquest panchmana and it does appear that the deceased had fallen from the train and met with an untoward incident in which he was travelling as a bona fide passenger. Merely because he had over travelled beyond his authorised distance of Bhusawal, it would not be enough to label him as a mala fide or fraudulent passenger. Looking to the rulings cited and provisions of the Act, Railway Manual, at the most, the Railway could have recovered excess fare or charge form him beyond the travelling destination; furthermore, he could also be allowed to return to the station of his destination in view of the Rules. That being so, in my opinion, the impugned order is rather indefensible and cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside."
16. In the case of Jameela (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"5. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation u/s 124A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railway that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable u/s 124A of the Act."
17. In the case of Manubhai Punamchand Upadhyay (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"14. The trial court dismissed the claim only on the basis of the report of the Commissioner, with regard to the accident in question, produced, at Exh.54. In our opinion, the trial court has committed, with due respect, serious error of law in placing reliance on the Commissioner's report, at Exh.54. On the various grounds, this finding of the trial court is vulnerable; we would, therefore, like to highlight the following aspects:
(i) The report of the Commissioner, with regard to the accident, produced, at Exh.54, is not only duly proved, in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.
(ii) The Railway Administration has not examined any witness to prove the report of the Commissioner, Exh.54
(iii) The report of the Commissioner at, Exh. 54, under the Old Indian Railways Act, 1890, was prepared under Section 4(c) which provided that, an Inspector of the Railways will make inquiry into the cause of any accident on the Railway. The expression "Inspector" in the old Act, the expression "Commissioner" is employed in the New Act.
(iv) Under the New Act, an inquiry is required to be held, by the Commissioner under Section 114. The causes of Railway accident, earlier were required to be inquired, by the Inspector of Railways. It appears that, since the Commissioner has not taken the place of Inspector, the trial court has used the expression 'report of the Commissioner'.
(v) Even if such a report is held to be duly proved, then also, it ipso facto does not constitute an evidence against the claimant.Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
(vi) Even if it is held to be a piece of evidence, then also, it would, pale into insignificance, in view of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; and also in view of the provisions of Section 82-A of the Old Act, for a claim of Rs. 50,000/-.
18. In the decision in case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"3. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the Railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.02.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.04.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at D. Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., F.A.O. No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and nonspeaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned Award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference".
19. It is also appropriate to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"10.......What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of death in accident which occurred before the amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- , the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration"
20. In the decision in case of Kamukayi and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2023 (19) SCC 116, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"21. The said judgment was further explained by this Court in the case of Radha Yadav (supra), relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus:
"11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration."
21. Then Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered both these above referred two decisions in the case of Doli Rani Saha (supra) and observed as under:-
"D. Compensation and interest:
18. The decision in Rina Devi (supra) holds as follows on the aspect of compensation:
"(15.4) Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon [Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo [Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands explained accordingly. The four- Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52] holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given."
The decision in Rina Devi (supra) has subsequently been followed in Union of India v. Radha Yadav5 and in Kamukayi and others v. Union of India and Others.
19. In Rina Devi (supra), this Court held that the claimant would be entitled to interest from the date of the accident and, in case the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the grant of compensation, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. The principle which has been laid down in Rina Devi (supra) serves a salutary purpose. This was noticed in the decision in Radha Yadav (supra) where it was observed that "the idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible".
20. In 2003, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger was Rs 4,00,000, as provided under Schedule I of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, as amended by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules 1997. The compensation payable for the death of a passenger as on date is Rs 8,00,000, which was enhanced by a notification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated 22 December 2016.
21. Following the judgment in Rina Devi (supra), from which we see no reason to depart, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation quantified at Rs 8,00,000. The compensation shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant by 30 September 2024, failing which the amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the order of this Court until payment.
22. The District Legal Services Authority, Kokrajhar shall provide all details, including the address of the appellant, so as to facilitate payment by the respondent in terms of the above directions. If the appellant has a bank account, including a Jan Dhan account, details shall be provided by the DLSA to the respondent so that the transfer of funds is made seamlessly to the appellant.
23. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
22. In view of the above observations and the discussion made Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined hereinabove, it clearly emerges that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in its proper perspective and in accordance with the settled principles of law as enunciated by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal appears to have adopted a narrow and technical approach instead of considering the benevolent object and the social welfare purpose underlying the provisions of the Railways Act, which is intended to provide expeditious relief to the victims of railway accidents and their dependents. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are, therefore, not sustainable either on facts or in law. Hence, the tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order.
23. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, suffer from material irregularity and legal infirmity and, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Case No. OA 0300004, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, are held entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal till the date of final realization.
25. At this stage, it is also relevant to note herein that during the pendency of the present appeal, the applicants have Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined preferred a Civil Application drawing the attention of this Court to the subsequent statutory amendment enhancing the quantum of compensation payable in cases of railway accidents and untoward incidents which has been allowed by this Court today. Considering the said development and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation as per the amended provisions if the claim is not finally adjudicated, this Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants.
26. In view of the above, and in terms of the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, which have enhanced the compensation payable in cases of death from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/-, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants-original claimants are entitled to the revised compensation amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the original application before the Tribunal till the date of final realization.
27. Hence, the respondents are hereby directed to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of final realization, before the concerned tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3733/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined order.
28. Upon such deposit, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed in favour of the present appellants - original claimants - after due verification of their bank details and after completion of necessary formalities through RTGS/NEFT, in the following manner:
(1) 50% of the compensation amount shall be disbursed in favour of appellant No. 1.
(2) From remaining 50% of compensation amount, 10% each shall be disbursed in favour of the children of the deceased.
29. Record and proceedings, if received, be transmitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:26:12 IST 2025