Gujarat High Court
Satyenarayan Gupta vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 914 of 2014
==========================================================
SATYENARAYAN GUPTA & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellants
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 21/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present First Appeal filed u/s 23 of the Railway Claim
Tribunal’s Act (in short “the Act”) is directed against the
judgment and order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the learned
Railway Claim Tribunal in OA No.0600003, whereby the
learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellant claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are
referred to as per their original status before the learned trial
Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 The deceased was traveling in train No.9058 Up
Vadodara-Valsad Intercity from Vadodara to Valsad on
8.8.2005 and he accidentally fell down between Nabipur andPage 1 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
Veradiya station at Km No.341/11 near Up line and
succumbed to the injuries.
3.2 The claimants’ case, as set out in the claim petition and
the accompanying affidavit, is that the deceased was
travelling as a ticketed passenger, holding ticket No.B
35003795 and the same is seized by the police for
investigation and copy of the same is placed at Exh.A-6.
Therefore, compensation u/s 16 of the Act was sought.
3.3 Having served, the Respondent Railway administration
has contested the claim of the applicant by filing the written
statement, wherein apart from denying the allegations made
in the claim application, it is contended inter-alia that the
above alleged incident is not an untoward incident and as
such the said incident does not fall within the provisions of
Sec. 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act.
3.4 The learned Tribunal, having framed the issue, came to
the conclusion that there was a variance between the
pleadings and the evidence/statements on record and thus,
dismissed the claim petition.
3.5 Hence, present First Appeal.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the claimants relying upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lata Vs. Union
of India and another, 2026 INSC 715, would submit that
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
pleading is sufficient to establish that the deceased was bona
fide passenger, if not controverted by any cogent and
convincing evidence. He would further submit that the railway
ticket recorded during the police investigation and placed on
record as Exhibit A-6 supports the claimants’ case that the
deceased was travelling with a valid ticket. He would further
submit that the post-mortem report on record indicates that
the deceased fell from a running train, a conclusion also
supported by the DRM report and the police investigation. He
would further submit that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the
deceased must have been travelling on some other train,
drawn merely from the fact that the body was recovered two
days after the stated date of the accident, was arrived at
without any concrete evidence and without the claimants
being called upon to explain the intervening period. He would
further submit that the claimants did not, at any stage, put
forward a case of suicide or self-inflicted injury, and that the
DRM report itself suggests that the deceased fell under the
train.
5.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Raval
prays to allow the First Appeal.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Anal Shah for the
respondent – Union of India, while supporting the impugned
judgment and order, would submit that there is clear
inconsistency in the pleadings and proof, variance thereof
clearly indicates that there is some suspicious facts, which
prove that the deceased did not fell from train No.9058 Up
Vadodara-Valsad Intercity, but from some other train,
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
wherein, he was travelling without any ticket and therefore,
he cannot be treated as “bona fide passenger” and thus, the
learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
6.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah
prays to dismiss the First Appeal.
7. At the outset, I may reproduce the findings of the
learned Tribunal, which governs dismissal of the claim
petition, which reads as under:-
“It is contended in the claim application as well as in
the affidavit of the applicant that the deceased had
purchased ticket from Vadodara railway station and
was travelling from Vadodara to Valsad on 8-8-05 by
9058Up and fell down from the running train at
Km.No.341/9-11 between Nabipur and Veradiya
railway station and died on the spot. All the
documents placed on record i.e. Station Master’s
Memo. Panchnama of place incident, Inquest
Panchnama, Panchnama of body identification, P.M.
report, DRM report etc. shows the date of incident is
10-8-2005. The applicants have failed to explain
happenings between 8-8-05 and 10-8-05. In the
normal course, the memo will be issued immediately
after the incident. In the instant case, the Memo is
issued on 10-8- 2005 at 10.35hrs. It is also mentioned
in the Memo dated 10-8-2005 that one Bhupat
Dayshing, Keyman informed from Gate No.189/C that
one unknown traveler is lying between Km.341/9-11.
The applicants have claimed that the incident took
place on 8-8-05. On the other hand, the evidence of
the respondent shows no incident happened on 8-8-
05. Even if we assume that the incident took place on
8-8-05 and died on the spot, whereafter his body was
recovered after two days i.e. on 10-8-05. Keeping in
view the hot and humid climate during the period in
question, the condition of the body might havePage 4 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
deteriorated or decomposed to a large extent and it is
also possible that some parts of the body might have
been eaten by the wild animals. But nothing has been
shown in the inquest or the P.M. report regarding
deterioration or its being decomposed. Date and time
of death is shown in the P.M. report i.e. 10-8-05 at
4.00pm.whereas date and time shown in inquest is
11.45 to 12.45 of 10-8-2005. Therefore, the
genuineness of applicants story about his travelling
on 8-8-05 and after falling down from the train had
died on the spot on 8-8-05 is suspect e and same is
not clearly established.
Moreover, the ticket No.B 35003795 dated 8-8-05
from Vadodara to Valsad claimed to have been
recovered from the deceased (certified copy of which
has not been placed on record) is an ordinary second
class ticket whereas the applicants have claimed that
the deceased was travelling in 9058Up Vadodara-
Valsad Intercity Express which was not valid for this
train. Train.
Xxxxxx
After hearing arguments on this issue, I find
momentum of force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel
for the respondent. The applicant miserably failed to
prove that the incident took place on 8-8-2005 and the
deceased was travelling as bonafide passenger and
fell down therefrom and as a result sustained injuries
and died in an untoward incident in terms of Section
123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
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.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of case based on the above mentioned issues, I come
to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to
establish that the incident took place on 8-8-05 and
the deceased was bona fide passenger in train
No.9058Up on 8-8-2005 or the incident was covered
under Section 123 C (2) of the Railways Act asPage 5 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
untoward incident. Hence, it does not stand proved
that the deceased was bona fide passenger and fell
down from the train in untoward incident, therefore, I
answer both these issues in negation.”
8. Before I discuss merits of the case, let refer recent
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lata (supra),
whereby, in para 3 to 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined
the scope of Railway Act, which read as under:-
“3. The RCT denied the claim since it was not
established that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger. As per the Tribunal, though the
accident qualified as an “untoward incident” within
the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway
Act 1989 [3] but since the bona fides could not be
established, compensation was denied. The High
Court in terms of judgment dated 3rd January 2024
agreed with the findings of the Tribunal, observing
that in the absence of any recovery of the
belongings of the deceased, the claim had to be
rejected. There was an inconsistency between her
statement and the facts pleaded in the claim
petition about the date of travel of the deceased.
She, in her cross examination said that the
deceased had boarded the train on 26th November,
and information of his death was received on 27th
November, however, in the claim petition, the date
of journey mentioned is 28th November.
Hence, the present appeal. Heard.
4. The 1989 Act contains 16 Chapters each dealing
with a specific aspect. For instance, Chapter II
deals with Railway Administrations, IIA deals with
Rail Land Development Authority, Chapter IV deals
with construction and Maintenance of Works,
Chapter VII deals with the Tribunal and Chapter
VIII concerns the Carriage of Passengers. Chapter
XII and XIII titled as “Accidents” and “Liability of
Railway Administration for Death and Injury to
Passengers due to accidents” respectively, arePage 6 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
important for us in the present case.
5. For us in the present case, examination of
Section 123, 124A, inter alia, is relevant, as such
we extract the same:-
“2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires,–…
(29) “passenger” means a person
travelling with a valid pass or ticket;
123 Definitions- In this Chapter, unless the
context otherwise requires,
(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature
described in section 124;
(b) “dependant” means any of the following
relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:–
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in
case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is
a minor, his parent;
………
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from
a train carrying passengers.] …
124. Extent of liability.– 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
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
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.
124A. Compensation on account of
untoward incidents.– 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 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
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
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 purpose 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.
…
127. Determination of compensation in
respect of any injury or loss of goods.– (1)
Subject to such rules as may be made, the
rates of compensation payable in respect of
any injury shall be determined by the Claims
Tribunal.
(2) The compensation payable in respect of any
loss of goods shall be such as the Claims
Tribunal may, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, determine to be
reasonable.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Section 123(a) defines “accident” with reference
to Section 124 which deals particularly with
collision of trains or derailment. Section 123(c)
defines “untoward incident”, which includes the
accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers. In 1994 however, the
Legislature felt apparently that the provision as it
stood was insufficient and so, by inserting Section
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
124A the scope of protection under this Section of
the1989 Act was widened. Under this Section,
liability arises irrespective of a wrongful act,
neglect or default on part of the railway
administration in other words it is “no-fault”
liability. [See: Union of India v. Prabhakaran
Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 . Although the
scope of this Section covers both death and injury
some exceptions have been listed out in the proviso
such as “suicide” and “attempted suicide”, the
injured/deceased’s own criminal act or a particular
act done under intoxication or insanity. By way of
the explanation, it has been clarified that a
“passenger” which has been otherwise defined in
Section 2(29) for the purposes of this Section,
includes a Railway servant on duty or a person who
has purchased a valid ticket or a valid platform
ticket and becomes a victim of an “untoward
incident”. The intent of these two Sections is clear;
they are meant to provide compensation
expeditiously to the victims of unfortunate
untoward incidents without imposing the burden of
requiring to prove negligence.
7. Given that Section 124A of 1989 Act provides for
“no-fault liability”, it is clear that the said provision
has a beneficial intent. The Railways although a
facet of colonial inheritance, today have been
expanded, developed and modernised, serving as
the backbone of the nation in terms of movement of
material, passengers and also essential goods.
Being an arm of the Government of India, one of
the overarching principles which govern its actions
is that of the welfare State provided for in Article
38 of the Constitution of India. To properly
examine whether the present case falls within the
scope of the beneficial provision, attention first
must be paid to how such a provision is
interpreted:
7.1 In a case arising out of the Electricity Act 2003
being Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa
Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCCPage 10 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
108 a Bench of three judges discussed purposive
construction and construction of beneficial statutes
in a following manner:
46. “Purposive construction” is certainly a
cardinal principle of interpretation. Equally
true is that no rule of interpretation should
either be overstated or overextended. Without
being overextended or overstated, this rule of
interpretation can be applied to the present
case. It points to the conclusion that an
interpretation which would attain the object
and purpose of the Act has to be given
precedence over any other interpretation
which may not further the cause of the statute.
The development of law is particularly
liberated both from literal and blinkered
interpretation, though to a limited extent. …
57. Treating the statute to be a beneficial piece
of legislation, this Court applied purposive
interpretation, while observing as under:
(Prabhakaran case [(2008) 9 SCC 527 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] , SCC p. 533, para
11)
“11. No doubt, it is possible that two
interpretations can be given to the
expression ‘accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying
passengers’, the first being that it
only applies when a person has
actually got inside the train and
thereafter falls down from the train,
while the second being that it
includes a situation where a person is
trying to board the train and falls
down while trying to do so. Since the
provision for compensation in the
Railways Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation, in our opinion, it should
receive a liberal and wider
interpretation and not a narrow and
technical one. Hence, in our opinionPage 11 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
the latter of the abovementioned two
interpretations i.e. the one which
advances the object of the statute
and serves its purpose should be
preferred vide Kunal Singh v.
Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC
524 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC
para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd.
[(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC (L&S)
131] (SCC para 12) and Transport
Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000)
1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121] ”
7.2 In X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 9 SCC
433 in the context of the permissibility of
termination of pregnancy beyond the statutorily
provided time period, three judges of this Court
observed as follows about the interpretative
exercise favouring beneficiaries:
“37. A catena of decisions emanating from this
Court, including Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare
Fund Board v. Fancy Food [Kerala Fishermen’s
Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4
SCC 341] , Bharat Singh v. New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre [Bharat Singh v. New
Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614 :
1986 SCC (L&S) 335] , Bombay Anand Bhavan
Restaurant v. ESI Corpn. [Bombay Anand
Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9
SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573] , Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9
SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] , settle the
proposition that progressive and beneficial
legislation must be interpreted in favour of the
beneficiaries when it is possible to take two
views of a legal provision.”
7.3 O. Chinnappa Reddy J. in Workmen v.
American Express International Banking
Corpn., (1985) 4 SCC 71 observed:
“4. The principles of statutory construction are
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
well settled. Words occurring in statutes of
liberal import such as social welfare legislation
and human rights’ legislation are not to be put
in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian
dimensions. In construing these legislations
the imposture of literal construction must be
avoided and the prodigality of its
misapplication must be recognised and
reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned
with the “colour”, the “content” and the
“context” of such statutes (we have borrowed
the words from Lord Wilberforce’s opinion in
Prenn v. Simmonds [(1971) 3 All ER 237] ). In
the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out
that law is not to be left behind in some island
of literal interpretation but is to enquire
beyond the language, unisolated from the
matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is
not to be interpreted purely on internal
linguistic considerations. In one of the cases
cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma
v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981
SCC (L&S) 16 : (1981) 1 SCR 789] , we had
occasion to say,“Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the
interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes.
Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a
broad interpretation. Where legislation is
designed to give relief against certain kinds of
mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by
making etymological excursions.”
Also see, K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob,
(2020) 14 SCC 126.
8. What can be understood from the above
judgments is that the beneficial legislations are
to receive purposive and liberal construction in
furtherance of the intentions of the
Legislature, as can be discerned, instead of a
literal or restrictive approach being adopted.
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
The overall idea is to make the intention so
understood, functional. ”
9. In para 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in regards to
observation that what family member of the passenger has to
do to get compensation. Para 9 reads as under:-
“9. On the aspect of burden of proof, it has been
held that the presence of a valid ticket is quite not
possibly the only way the bona fide nature of the
passenger can be established. In Kamukayi v.
Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116 the conclusion
in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572
was referred to in following terms:
“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
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
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)
The conclusion of the above discussion is that
technical approaches and lapses in procedure
should not defeat the welfare aim of the statute
as it does not befit the Railways, as an
instrumentality of the State, to take such
restrictive, pigeonhole view. The governing
standard is the preponderance of probabilities
and not beyond reasonable doubt, as in
criminal trials. The foundational facts that
need to be established are – (i) travelling on
the basis of a valid ticket; and (ii) an accident
leading to death. Courts and Tribunals should
always take a view that retains the objective of
the Section as being accessible compensation
with an underlying humanitarian perspective.
[See: Rajni v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2182] “
10. In the present case, the claimants came out with specific
case that the deceased was traveling in train No.9058 Up
Vadodara-Valsad Intercity from Vadodara to Valsad on
8.8.2005 and holding ticket No.B 35003795 and the same is
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
seized by the police for investigation and copy of the same is
placed at Exh.A-6. The learned Tribunal on presumption came
to the conclusion that since body of the deceased was found on
10.8.2005, he must been travelling in some other train. The
learned Tribunal further found that the claimants failed to
explain happening between 8.8.2005 and 10.8.2005, as no one
has reported the incident to railway administration and
therefore, it is believed that the accident did not take place on
8.8.2005, but on 10.8.2005. It is believed by learned Tribunal
that ticket No.B 35003795 dated 8-8-05 from Vadodara to
Valsad claimed to have been recovered from the deceased
(certified copy of which has not been placed on record) is an
ordinary second class ticket whereas the claimants have
claimed that the deceased was travelling in 9058Up
Vadodara-Valsad Intercity Express which was not valid for this
train. From the record, it appears that the dead body of the
deceased was recovered between Nabipur and Veradiya
station at Km No.341/11 near up railway line track. The
railway did not come out with the case that it is a case of
suicide or self-inflicted injury, and that the DRM report itself
suggests that the deceased fell under the train.
11. Two witnesses examined by the respondent – railway say
that the incident was not reported on 8.8.2005. In this
juxtaposition and looking to the facts of the case, it is proved
that the deceased has lost his life when travelling in railway.
Even the dead body of the deceased was found two days after
the incident lying near the railway track between Nabipur and
Veradiya station at Km No.341/11.
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
12. In Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC
656, in a case where dead body of the deceased was found
three days after the incident, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
mere absence of ticket with injured / deceased is insufficient to
reject plea of bona fide passenger. The burden is upon the
railway to disprove that the deceased / injured was not bona
fide passenger.
13. In view of above, the claimants have successfully
established that the deceased was bona fide passenger and
lost his life while travelling in train and therefore, present
First Appeal requires consideration.
14. For the foregoing reasons, present First Appeal is
allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2011
passed by the learned Railway Claim Tribunal in OA
No.0600003 is hereby quashed and set aside. The claim
petition is allowed.
15. The claimants are entitled to receive claim of Rs.4 lakh
with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till
realization or flat Rs.8 lakhs, whichever is higher.
16. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 21:23:42 IST 2026
