Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Mitesh Uttambhai Patel on 14 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2928 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
=====================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
MITESH UTTAMBHAI PATEL
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 14/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla
appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Rathin P.
Raval for the defendant.
2. The judgment and order in Case
No.OA(llu)/ADI/607/2025(IJ) dated 01.05.2025 granting the
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum
from the date of the incident, i.e. 14.02.2024, till realization is
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
challenged by way of this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RCT
Act’) by the Railway Administration.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the incident took
place on 14.02.2024, whereby Mr. Mitesh Uttambhai Patel, while
travelling by the Train No.09158 Bharuch – Surat Memu from
Utran to Surat railway station, on one-way journey ticket, coult
not sustain the heavy rush on the platform at Utran railway
station and fell in the gorge of the platform and received the
injury on the legs, resulting in the amputation above knee
portion of the left leg and below knee portion of the right leg and
also sustained the other injuries on the body.
3.1 Firstly, he was taken to Smimer Hospital, Surat by
108 Ambulance and then, shifted to INS Hospital, Surat for
further treatment.
3.2 It is in this factual background the claimant preferred
the application under Section 16 of the ‘RCT Act’ seeking
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest.
3.3 The claim petition was contested by the Railway
Administration setting up the case of total denial with the
further contention that the claimant was not a bonafide
passenger, no rail ticket was found and he suffered injury due to
self-negligence, and therefore, the incident cannot be termed as
an ‘untoward incident’. The claimant, who remained grossly
negligent as he was alighting from the running train and
attempted to board in another coach at the time of the incident,
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
which led to the incident and for that self-inflicted injury, the
Railway Administration is not required to pay the compensation.
3.4 The DRM Report took placed a year later, which
indicates that the claimant was traveling without ticket from
Surat to Utran, he had the railway Pass No.G06165895
permitting him to travel from Amalsad to Surat.
3.5 The learned Tribunal fixed the issues and then
permitted the parties to lead the evidence and after analzying the
evidence on record, pleased to allow the claim petition, referring
to the very famous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Rina Devi, reported in 2019 (3) SCC 572.
3.6 In the aforesaid terms, being aggrieved Railway
Administration has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, in support
of the present appeal, mainly argued that the claimant travelled
without ticket from Surat to Utran. However, his railway pass
was permitting travel from Surat to Amalsad, and therefore, the
claimant hopelessly failed to prove that he was a bonafide
passenger and secondly, that he tried to alight from the running
train at Utran railway station and due to his own/self-
negligence, which resulted into the accident and thus, the
claimant is not entitled to get the compensation for his own
negligence.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval; however,
supports the impugned judgment and submitted that, it is
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
noticeable that the incident place on 14.02.2024. Claim was filed
on 13.01.2025 and the DRM Report indicating that claimant was
traveling from Surat to Utran without ticket was filed on
31.01.2025 i.e. after filing of the claim petition.
6. In view of Rule 27 of the Railway Passenger (Manner
of Investigation of ‘untoward incident’s) Rules, 2003, the DRM
Report has to be filed within a period of sixty days from the date
of the incident. Therefore, in the present case, no worthy reliance
can be placed upon the DRM Report.
7. The learned Tribunal relied upon the judgment of
Rina Devi (Supra) to believe that once the victim files the
affidavit that he was traveling with the ticket, the burden shifted
upon the Railway Administration to disprove that aspect and
that merely on plea of negligence as contributing factor does not
avail any assistance to the Railway Administration.
8. In view of above, the learned Railway Tribunal
believed that the incident was untoward incident and claimant is
entitled to the compensation.
9. Apt to note that the issue raised in this appeal is
covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in First
Appeal No.2620 of 2024, whereby this Court, after referring to
the authoritative pronouncement in para nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 held
as under:
…”7. This Court in the case of Union of India Through
General Manager vs. Nikeshkumar Ramjibhai Patel
passed in First Appeal No.1383 OF 2023 inPage 4 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
paragraph 4 held as under:
…”4. It is a case where Railway Authority could not
deny that the claimant had two valid railway
platform tickets and pursuant to which he had
entered in the Railway Station. The ‘untoward
incident’ took place when he was alighting from the
train after setting the luggage of his relatives. The
case clear as crystal where the claimant can be
treated as ‘bona fide passenger’ under Section
124A of the Railway Act more particularly reading
the Explanation whereby in inclusive definition
‘passenger’ is defined and in (ii) thereof it is said
that a person holding a valid platform ticket and
becomes victim of an ‘untoward incident’, is held to
be a bona fide passenger. It is nobody’s case that
claimant did not receive any injury while he was on
the platform and even cannot deny un-controverted
‘untoward incident’.”…
8. Further, this Court in the case of Union of India
vs. Gopalbhai Ramjibhai Jambukiya and Anr.
(supra), in paragraphs 6 to 11 held as under:
6. At the outset, let me refer that it is undisputed
fact that the deceased was travelling in Okha
Gorakhpur Express Train bearing No.15046. It is
again admitted position that she boarded from
Okha railway station and was to alight at Wakaner
railway station. It is also admitted fact that the
accident took place at Wakaner railway station
when she was alighting from the train and
sustained crush injuries and later on, died. The
point of difference between the disputing parties,
according to claimant that, when deceased was
alighting from the train, it was about to stop and
deceased was waiting for the train to stop. She was
waiting at the door of the train for alighting.
However, due to jerk or push received from the
back, she fell and received the injuries, whereas
according to defendant, when the train was just
started, she jumped from the train along with one
male and a minor child.
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
7. The Railway Tribunal assessed the evidence
firstly on the ground that the deposition of the
claimant has not been challenged by way of cross-
examination, and therefore, the contention raised
by the claimant goes unchallenged. Similar
situation remains for the affidavit filed by the guard
for and on behalf of the Railway. The deposition
made on the affidavit has not been challenged by
way of cross-examination, but a stark difference,
which could be noticed from the two affidavits filed
by the disputing parties that while entering into the
defence, the guard – Mr. Jagdish Ambaram Parmar
did not specify that deceased jumped and fell, but
he used the words “Unknown lady”. The fallacy of
the statement could be noticed also on the ground
that, at earlier point of time, the guard – Mr. Jagdish
Ambaram Parmar has not made any such
statement either before the Police or such statement
is not produced on record and secondly, if an
unknown lady along with a person and a child
jumped and fell on the Wakaner Railway station,
then apart from the unknown lady, the two other
persons must have received the injury, but the
railway did not lead any evidence to that extent.
8. As against the aforesaid evidence, the claimant
came out with the clear case that the lady was
waiting at the door of the train of Okha Gorakhpur
Express to alight on Wakaner Railway station,
whereby due to the jerk and jolt received as train
was just about to stop along with push from behind,
she fell on the Wakaner Railway station and her
legs were amputated and later on, she died.
9. The evidence led by the claimant having gone
unchallenged is found worth the trust and it has
won the confidence of the learned Tribunal.
10. Apposite to refer the scrutiny of evidence made
by the learned Tribunal. The relevant observation
and finding of the learned Tribunal reads as under:-
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
“8. …From the detailed scrutiny of the above
documents make it evidently clear that the
accidental fall took place, but Respondent
attributes negligence to the deceased, though no
cogent evidence has been filed in support of the
above mentioned contention of the Respondent. At
this stage, in response to the alleged negligence
of the deceased, it is worthwhile to quote the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Jameela v. Union of India, in Civil Appeal No.
1184 of 2003 decided on 27.8.2010 has observed
in Para No. 9 as under:-
‘The manner in which the accident is sought
to be reconstructed by the Railway, the
deceased was standing at the open door of
the train compartment from where he fell
down, is called by the Railway itself as
negligence Now negligence of this kind which
is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not
the same thing as mentioned in Clause to the
proviso of section 124-A. A criminal act
envisaged under Clause © must have an
element of malicious intent or mensrea.
Standing at the open doors of the
compartment of a running train may be a
negligent act, even as a rash act, but without
anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act.
Thus the case of the Railway must fail even
after assuming everything in its favour’.
xxx xxx xxx
11 Once it is established that the deceased died on
account of an accidental fall rom the train, the
incident squarely falls within the definition of
‘untoward incident’ u/s 123 (c) (2) of the Railways
Act. Moreover, it is now well settled that Sec. 124-A
lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case
of railway accidents and hence, if a case comes
within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly
irrelevant, as to who was at fault. In the instant
case, the material placed on record reveals that the
accident in which the deceased had died is clearly
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
not covered by the proviso to Section 124A and that
the incident does not occur because of any of the
reasons mentioned in the clauses (a) to (e) of the
proviso to Section 124-A.”
11. Section 123(c) of the ‘the Act of 1989’ defines
the ‘Untoward accident’ as under:-
“CHAPTER XIII – LIABILITY OF RAILWAY
ADMINISTRATION FOR DEATH AND INJURY TO
PASSENGERS DUE TO ACCIDENTS
123. Definitions.–In this Chapter, unless the
context otherwise requires,–
xxx
(c) “‘untoward incident'” means–
(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the
meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission
of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by
any person in or on any train carrying passengers,
or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or
booking office or on any platform or in any other
place within the precincts of a railway station; or(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a
train carrying passengers.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shrikumar
Gupta & Anr. vs. Union of India, 2025 Live Law SC
1115, believed that no person would attempt to de-board
or alight from running express train and absence of
evidence prove that the deceased has committed the ‘self-
inflicted injury’, he cannot be denied to be a ‘bona fide
passenger’. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 reads as
under:
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
…”9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and on perusal of the records, it
would reveal that there was no dispute to the fact
that the deceased having purchased a valid ticket
to travel from Satna to Maihar. On the relevant date
i.e. on 29.05.2013 another express train has also
entered the platform in which the deceased was
standing and by mistake obviously having seen the
train having arrived at the same platform he has
boarded the train to travel to Maihar. In fact said
express train also passed through Maihar.
However, the deceased not being well conversant
with these details obviously under mistaken notion
has boarded the express train. The DMR Report
would also indicate that the deceased had in fact
purchased a railway ticket and had expired due to
the injuries sustained in the railway accident. It
was for this precise reason that both the members
of the tribunal held in favour of the claimants, by
arriving at a conclusion that deceased was a bona
fide passenger. Merely because the deceased had
boarded a wrong train, it cannot be construed that
he was not a bona fide passenger so as to absolve
the railway authorities from contending that
deceased not being a bona fide passenger.
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
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
the railway authorities are required to pay the
compensation.”…
10. Moreover, if we go through the different dates on
record, the DRM report, which has been revealed later by
the learned trial Court, is filed subsequent to filing of the
claim petition, which is beyond prescribed time limit.”…
10. Yet in another judgment passed by this Court in First
Appeal No.507 of 2024, this Court in para nos.9 and 10 held as
under:-
…”9. In Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in
2019 (3) SCC 572, the judgment of Pushpa wd/o.
Gautam Kamble and others (supra) was discussed. In
case of Pushpa wd/o. Gautam Kamble (supra), a
hawker died in course of boarding a train. The Bombay
High Court applied the concept of self-inflicting injury to
deny the compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra),
disproved the theory of applying concept of self-inflicting
injury in para nos.23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the
judgment, which reads as under:
…”23. In Pushpa v. Union of India, 2017 SCC
Online Bom 8117, a hawker died in the course of
boarding a train. It was held that he was not
entitled to compensation as it was a case of “‘self-
inflicted injury'”. The relevant observations are:
(SCC OnLine Bom para 14)“14. Such an attempt by a hawker has been viewed
by the trial court as something amounting to
criminal negligence on his part and also an effort to
inflict injuries to himself. The trial court reasoned
that if the deceased had to sell his goods by
boarding a train, he should have ensured to do so
only when it was quite safe for him to get on to the
train or otherwise he could have avoided catching
the train and waited for another train to come. It
also hinted that there was absolutely no compulsionPage 10 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
or hurry for the deceased in the present case to
make an attempt to somehow or the other board the
train while it was gathering speed.”
24. In Shyam Narayan v. Union of India, 2017 SCC
Online Del 8734, same view was taken which is as
follows:
(SCC Online Del para 7)
7. I cannot agree with the arguments urged on
behalf of the appellant applicants in the facts of the
present case because there is a difference between
an ‘untoward incident’ and an act of criminal
negligence. Whereas negligence will not disentitle
grant of compensation under the Railways Act,
however, once the negligence becomes a criminal
negligence and ‘self-inflicted injury’ then
compensation cannot be granted. This is specifically
provided in the first proviso to Section 124-A of the
Railways Act which provides that compensation
will not be payable in case the death takes place on
account of suicide or attempted suicide, ‘self-
inflicted injury’, bona fide passenger’s own criminal
act or an act committed by the deceased in the state
of intoxication or insanity.”
25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the
concept of “‘self-inflicted injury'” would require
intention to inflict such injury and not mere
negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would
amount to invoking the principle of contributory
negligence which cannot be done in the case of
liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this
connection refer to the judgment of this Court in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar
laying down that plea of negligence of the victim
cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault
theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury
in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will
be an “‘untoward incident'” entitling a victim to the
compensation and will not fall under the proviso to
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of
the victim as a contributing factor.
Re: (iii) Burden of proof when body found on
railway premises – Definition of passenger
26. 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, referring to the scheme
of the 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 bona fide passenger. The
Railway Administration has special knowledge
whether ticket was issued or not. The 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, the
Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh25 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 the 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 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: (Gurcharan Singh case, SCC
OnLine Del para 4)
“4…. (ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant claimants is totally
misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always
lies with the appellant 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
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
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 bona fide passenger because
no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways
either under the Railways Act or the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act and the 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 the 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 learned Single Judge of this
Court in Pyar Singh v. Union of India 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 this judgment and not by the ratio of the
case of Leelamma.”
27. In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of
India, 2011 SCC Online AP 828, the same view was
taken by a Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after
referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act as
follows: (SCC OnLine AP para 24)
“24. So, from Section 101 of the 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
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
unless the respondent admits the assertions made
by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this
case. Except the oral assertion of AW 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 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.”
28. In Kamrunnissa v. Union of India, (2019) 12
SCC 391, 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:
“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 Paras VII and VIII extractedPage 14 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
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.”
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.”…
10. In the context of ‘no fault’ liability, the concept of
‘self-inflicted injury’ generally does not apply. It is hard
to believe that deceased has deliberately caused injury
to cause harm. In the case on hand, Railway
administration failed to prove that deceased has
attempted suicide or attempted no cause injury despite
knowing damage. In a nutshell, the principle of ‘no fault’
liability fundamentally displaces traditional causation
requirements, establishing that compensation is
available irrespective of fault attribution. Thus, most
jurisdiction sensibly exclude intentional self injury from
coverage, reserving no-fault prosecution for involuntary
incidents.”…
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
undefined
11. In view of above, the appeal fails and is accordingly,
dismissed.
12. Interim-relief, if any, granted earlier is discontinued.
13. Remaining amount lying before the learned Railway
Tribunal deposited by the Railway Administration is directed to
be disbursed to the claimant.
Record and Proceedings, if any, to be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 20:43:42 IST 2026
