BRAHMANE MANISHA SADANANDBHAIversusUNION OF INDIA

     C/FA/3793/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3793 of 2025

==========================================================
                 BRAHMANE MANISHA SADANANDBHAI & ORS.
                                Versus
                            UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MONISH MALVIYA for MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                               Date : 13/03/2026

                                   ORDER


1.     Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.


2.     This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”) is directed against the judgment
and order dated 12.8.2025 passed by the leaned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case
No.OA (Iiu)/ADI/630/2025 (DT), whereby the the learned
Tribunal rejected claim of Rs.8 lakh plus interest on the
ground       that     the   incident   took      place   within      the     train
compartment does not fall within the untoward incident as
de4ned in section 123(c) or section 124 of the Act and no
liability of the Indian railway arose to pay compensation for
the death of deceased Sadanand Brahmane.


3.     Brie7y stated facts of the case is that deceased Sadanand


                                   Page 1 of 4
     C/FA/3793/2025                        JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




along with his friend were travelling from Bhusawal to Sutar
in train No.19008 Bhusawal – Surat Express with ticket
bearing No.UHQ-22886948 on 31.1.2024. Due to sudden jerk
and jolt in the train, the deceased was on the upper berth fell
on the ground of the train and died later on in the private
hospital.


4.     The learned Tribunal referred to section 123(c) of the
Act and read section 123(c)(2) of the Act in isolation and came
to the conclusion that since the deceased fell down within the
train and died, he is not entitled to get any compensation.


5.     The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, held that
object of the Act is for the bene4t of the person for whom the
Act was made and should be given liberal and not the strict
interpretation. Section 123(c) of the Act on its plain reading
appears to be a bene4cial piece of legislation. Section 123(c)
in fact widened the bene4t of untoward accident and even if,
the railway is not involved in untoward accident, the railway
has been held liable to pay compensation if a passenger
travelling in the railway suAers injury or death.


6.     The bene4t is found to be in inclusive de4nition. In view
of section 123(c)(iii), even if a person is in waiting hall, clock
room or reservation or booking oAice or on any platform or
any other place within the precincts of a railway station and
received injury or suAered death, the railway is liable to pay
compensation.



                             Page 2 of 4
      C/FA/3793/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




7.      Section 123(c)(2) is adding one more reason and ground
for permitting the Tribunal to grant compensation. It cannot
be read in isolation. Section 124 of the Act, whereby extent of
liability has been de4ned, uses phrase “any part of train
carrying passenger”, which assumed signi4cance and even if,
the passenger is travelling in the train, is entitled to
compensation if he received injury or death.


8.      Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval relied upon the
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench in case of Union Of India Through The
General Manager, Northern Railway Versus Narendra
Kumar Gupta, 2014 ACJ 2242, which involves absolute
identical facts.


9.      In view of above, this Court does not subscribe non-
sensitive approach of the            learned Tribunal and rather
deprecate such non-sensitive approach carried out by the
learned Tribunal to negate the claim of a person, who
admittedly, was travelling in the train and fell due to jerk and
jolt in the train and received death.           A lot more can be
observed, but the Court restrained itself from observing
anything further.


10.     For the reasons stated herein above, present First
Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order dated
12.8.2025 passed by the leaned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ahmedabad              Bench,   Ahmedabad      in       Case        No.OA
(Iiu)/ADI/630/2025 (DT) is hereby quashed and set aside.



                                 Page 3 of 4
             C/FA/3793/2025                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




      11.       The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to
      be decided afresh keeping in mind the aforesaid observations
      as well as the judgment in case of Naresh Kumar Gupta
      (supra) so also the provisions of section 123(c) of the Act in its
      entirety and section 124 of the Act.


      12.       Time limit of eight weeks to complete the matter is 4xed
      from the date of receipt of copy of this order.



                                                                                                      (J. C. DOSHI,J)
      SHEKHAR P. BARVE


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/03/2026 15:41:31




                                                           Page 4 of 4