Holding

The appeal is dismissed, and the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation stands.

Summary

The respondent Amit Rajeshbhai Joshiar suffered severe injuries, including amputation of his left hand, after falling from a moving train at Jamnagar station while assisting his mother who held a reservation ticket. He claimed compensation of Rs 7.60 lakh under the Railway Act, and the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded the amount. The Union of India appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, contending that the respondent was not a bona‑fide passenger because he possessed only a platform ticket, which allegedly did not permit him to be in a carriage. The High Court examined precedent, notably the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rajni & Another v. Union of India and the principles laid down in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, holding that the burden shifts to the railway once the claimant files an affidavit and that the absence of a ticket does not defeat a bona‑fide passenger claim. Relying on Section 124A, 123(c) of the Railway Act and the cited case law, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it at the admission stage, leaving the Tribunal’s award intact. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal stands.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent, holding only a platform ticket, qualifies as a bona‑fide passenger for purposes of compensation under the Railway Act.
Whether the burden of proof shifts to the railway once the claimant files an affidavit asserting travel.
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987s. 23

Subjects

railway accidentcompensationbona fide passengerplatform ticketburden of proofRailway Claims Tribunal ActRailway Actuntoward incident

Judgment

C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5881 of
2025

In R/FIRST APPEAL/2347/2026

With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2347 of 2026
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
AMIT RAJESHBHAI JOSHIAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
FRESH RULE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED(42) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 09/06/2026

ORDER IN CA

Considering the averments made in the application, the same
is allowed and delay caused in preferring main matter stands
condoned.

ORDER IN FA

Heard learned advocates for the appellant.

1. This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”) is directed against the judgment
and order dated24.7.2025 passed by the leaned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case

Page 1 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

No.OA (Iiu)/ADI/681/2025, whereby the the learned Railway
Tribunal allowed claim of Rs.7.60 lakh plus interest from the
date of incident till the amount actually realized.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2025 mother of
the respondent namely Ushaben wanted to travel from
Jamnagar to Haridwar with a valid reservation ticket bearing
PNR no. 8124514992 (containing 106 adults; coach No. S/2,
berth No. 9 to 14) in train No. 19565 Okha-Dehradun
Uttaranchal Express. The respondent along with his wife and
brothers, went to drop his mother at the platform of Jamnagar
Railway station and purchased a platform ticket bearing No.
B-21603362 (containing 04 persons). Thereafter, when the
train arrived at platform No. 1. there was heavy rush of the
passengers on the platform. There was no portal available at
that time and the passenger, being a sr. citizen lady, carried
two suitcases, handbags & water bag and the respondent
went inside the train with the view to help his mother in
boarding. After dropping his mother in the train, immediately
he was getting down from the train at the platform, at that
time due to a sudden jerk and jolt of the train he lost his
balance and accidentally fell down from the train at platform
No.1 of Jamnagar station. Due to said fall he was dragged
with the train and his left hand was crushed under the wheels
resulting in amputation from the shoulder joint portion. He
sustained other multiple grievous injuries on spine and
different parts of his body also. In these consequences, the
respondent sought compensation as he met with an untoward
incident.

Page 2 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that
the respondent was not a bona fide passenger and had no
legal ticket at the time of incident. He would further submit
that the platform ticket which the respondent was holding
does not entitle the holder to remain in any carriage of
compartment in view of para 302(c) of Indian Railway
Commercial Manual, Vol I, Chapter III. Thus, he prays to
allow this appeal.

4. Recently, this Court has encountered identical issue in
First Appeal No.2943 of 2024, wherein, in para 7 to 10, this
Court has observed thus:-

“7. It is incontrovertible that along with the claim
petition, dependents filed the affidavit saying that
deceased had purchased platform ticket. As against
this, it is a case of the railway that no platform
ticket was found either from DRM report or inquest
panchnama.

8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Rajni & Another vs. Union of India &
Another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986
addressed the issue and held that mere absence of
ticket with the deceased does not negate the claim
of being bona fide passenger. It is further held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that proceedings under
Section 124A of the Act are governed by principles
of preponderance and probabilities, not the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as
required in criminal trials. The relevant
observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
paras:10, 11, 12 and 13 read as under:

“10. The Appellants case solely rests on the
affidavit dated 10.02.2020 filed before the
Railway Claims Tribunal namely the affidavit

Page 3 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

of the wife of the deceased. She has stated in
unequivocal terms that her husband late Shri
Sanjesh Kumar on the date of the accident
i.e., on 19.05.2017 was travelling from Indore
to Ujjain by passenger train no. 12485
Ranthambore Express with ticket in second
class. She has further deposed that the ticket
has been seized by the Police Narwar, District
Ujjain. She has also deposed that on previous
day night that is on 18.05.2017 she was told
by the deceased that he was going out with
some work and asked for his Aadhar Card and
ID proof and thereafter he left the house with
his luggage. Before the Tribunal as well as
before the High Court the appellants had
placed reliance on Divisional Railway
Manager (DRM) note dated 23.02.2019 (R/1)
to contend that Police Station Narwar while
forwarding the documents to the railway
authorities had forwarded a railway ticket
bearing no. L1027420 EX dated 19.05.2017
(Indore to Ujjain). The copy of the said
railway ticket is at Annexure P-1 which was
marked as Exhibit P-6 before the Railway
Claims Tribunal. Thus, the initial burden
which was cast on the claimants stood
discharged. Infact, the High Court while
reappreciating the evidence tendered before
the Tribunal found that DRM report dated
26.02.2019 (R/1) revealed that at the time of
accident, deceased was travelling in train and
having fallen from train had sustained injuries
and later succumbed to the same. In the teeth
of said finding recorded, the High Court held
that it established that the death would fall
within the purview of ‘untoward incident’ as
defined under Section 124 (A) of the Railways
Act, 1989. However, while examining the
issue as to whether claimants had proved
deceased was a bonafide passenger, same
was held in the negative on the premise that
the railway ticket was not found alongwith
the body of the deceased or alongwith the

Page 4 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

articles found near the body of the deceased.
However, the aforesaid DRM Report dated
23.02.2019 (R/1) has recorded a finding as
under: -

“Ticket Verification: - In the documents
received from Police Station Narwar in
relation to the incident of 19.05.2017, the
train travel ticket no. L10274210 from Indore
to Ujjain has been verified by the Chief
Booking Supervisor Indore on 19.05.2017 and
it is stated that the said ticket was issued
from Indore Station. (Document attached).”

11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha
vs. Union of India3, has held that the burden
of proof would shift to the Railways once, the
Claimant-Appellant filed an affidavit stating
the facts and adverting to the report arising
from the investigation conducted by the
railway authorities. It has been further held: -

“15. From the recapitulation of the various
judicial pronouncements leading to the
present appeal, it can be seen that the
primary issue is whether the deceased was
travelling on the train in question. In Rina
Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3
SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , a two-
Judge Bench of this Court considered the
question of the party on which the burden of
proof will lie in cases where the body of the
deceased is found on railway premises. This
Court held that the initial burden would be on
the claimant, which could be discharged by
filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once
the claimant did so, the burden would then
shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held
that the mere absence of a ticket would not
negate the claim that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger. The relevant extract
from the ruling of the Court is reproduced
below: (SCC p. 588, para 29) “29. We thus

Page 5 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

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.” (emphasis
supplied)

16. In the present case, the appellant had
duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and
adverting to the report arising from the
investigation conducted by the respondent,
which showed that the deceased was
travelling on the train and that his death was
caused by a fall during the course of his
travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the
Railways, which has not discharged its
burden. Therefore, the presumption that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger on the
train in question was not rebutted.

17. Further, the report of the IO indicates the
details mentioned in the post-mortem report.
It states that the cause of death was due to an
injury sustained on the head and that all
injuries were antemortem and caused by
“blunt force impact”. It also states that forty-
eight to seventy-two hours had passed since
the time of death.”]

12. Though Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways
has made a fervent plea to contend that the

Page 6 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard
to the suspicious circumstances of the railway
tickets relied upon is sufficient to discard the
claim, we are not impressed by the said
submission for reasons more than one. Firstly,
the initial burden which is cast on the
claimants to prove that the deceased had
travelled in the train has been discharged by
the sworn statement made by first claimant
(wife of deceased). Secondly, the High Court
by relying upon the report of DRM report
(R/1) has arrived at a conclusion that death of
1st claimants husband would fall within the
purview of expression ‘untoward incident’ as
defined under Section 124 (A) of the Act;
Thirdly, the railway ticket which formed part
of the police report stood unrebutted;
Fourthly, the very same report also disclosed
the Chief Booking Supervisor, Indore had
verified the ticket produced alongwith the
report of the police and certified that ticket
had been issued from Indore Station. This
would clearly satisfy the requirement of the
expression ‘passenger’ as contemplated under
Clause (ii) to Explanation to Section 124 (A)
of the Act and deceased being declared as a
‘passenger’ travelling in the train. This view
also gets fortified by the judgment of the
coordinate bench in the case of Kamukayi and
Others vs. Union of India and Others4,
whereunder it has been held: -

“9. ……………………………………….. By the
explanation of the said section clarifying
about “passenger”, it would include 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.

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

Page 7 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

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 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)

13. In the light of the above, we are of the
considered view that the High Court had
faulted in affirming the finding of the
Railways Claims Tribunal whereunder the
claimants petition had been rejected for non-
production of a seizure memo of the ticket

Page 8 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

and for non- examination of the investigating
officer, which is and was the main thrust of
argument canvassed by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Railways. This reasoning
ignores the consistent judicial line that the
absence of formal seizure or witness
examination does not, by itself, negate
bonafide travel when other material evidence
substantiate the claim. Mere technical
irregularities or lapses in procedure should
not defeat a legitimate claim under a welfare
statue, like the Railways Act, 1989.
Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with
liability of railway administration for death
and injury to passenger due to accident. A
Hyper technical approach which would
frustrate the object of providing relief to
victims of railway accidents should be
eschewed. The insistence on a formal seizure
memo would amount to importing standard of
proof which normally is sought for in a
criminal trial.”

9. This Court, in First Appeal No.3793 of 2025
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran
Vijaya Kumar, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 to
understand the object of the Railway Act. Paras:5
and 6 thereof read as under:

“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 benefit 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
beneficial piece of legislation. Section 123(c)
in fact widened the benefit 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 suffers

Page 9 of 10
C/CA/5881/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

injury or death.

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

10. In view of above, without dwelling further
into merits of the case, since claimants have filed
the affidavit claiming that the deceased had
platform ticket, it is burden upon the railway to
disprove this aspect, otherwise in view of Section
124A, 123(c)(2) and 124 the Railway is liable to pay
the compensation. As said by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in aforesaid authority, hyper-technical
approach which frustrates the object of providing
relief to victim of railway should be ignored and
eschewed.”

5. In view of above, since the issue raised in this appeal is
no more res integra, I am not inclined to exercise discretion to
issue notice and the appeal stands dismissed at admission
stage. Rule discharged. Consequently, CA does not survive
and stands disposed of accordingly.

6. R & P be called for from the concerned Court.

(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 09/06/2026 16:33:02

Page 10 of 10