SUKHABHAI NANJIBHAI MAKWANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the unfortunate parents of one Maheshbhai, who while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad on 27/9/2017 was a victim of an 'untoward incident '. While travelling in the general compartment of the train, he fell down on account of a sudden jerk and jolt when the said train was between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations. He sustained multiple grievous injuries and was admitted in hospital. He, however, succumbed to his injuries on 31/10/2017. The claim application preferred by the parents under Sec. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [For short, 'the Act of 1987'] was allowed by the Railway Claims Tribunal [ For short, 'the Tribunal'] on 17/6/2022. It held that Maheshbhai was victim of an 'untoward incident ' and had suffered an accidental fall. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of ?8 lakhs along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the incident till the date of the order. The Union of India being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under Sec. 23 of the Act of 1987. A learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court [ For short, 'the High Court'] by the order dtd. 15/7/2025 allowed the said appeal by holding that there was no evidence as to the fall of the victim from the train and, therefore, the incident could not be called an 'untoward incident ' as defined under Sec. 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 [For short, 'the Act of 1989']. The claimants being aggrieved are in appeal.

(2.) Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the claimants, submitted that the High Court committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Tribunal by which the claim application preferred by the claimants had been allowed. The victim was a bona fide passenger who had a fall from the train in which he was travelling between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations. Merely on the ground that the travel details of the victim, such as the name of the train in which the victim was travelling having not been disclosed, has weighed with the High Court. He submitted that it having been specifically pleaded by the claimants that the victim was travelling with a valid ticket which was lost, the burden to prove that the victim was an unauthorised passenger was on the Railways. No material was brought on record by the Railways to disbelieve the claim of the claimants. The Report submitted under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 [For short, 'the Rules of 2003'] as amended in 2007 was after a period of more than seven months from the occurrence of the untoward incident. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003, such investigation was required to be immediately completed and report in that regard was to be expeditiously submitted. Referring to the decision in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur [Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017] decided on 25/4/2017, he submitted that on account of belated preparation of the investigation report, the same could not be relied upon. He further referred to the evidence led by the claimants before the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that the victim was a bona fide passenger. By narrowly interpreting the provisions of the Act of 1989, the High Court erred in reversing the award passed by the Tribunal. He also placed reliance on the decision in Union of India vs. Rina Devi; 2018 INSC 469. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the material brought on record, the award passed by the Tribunal ought to be restored and the impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent, supported the impugned order passed by the High Court. He submitted that the claim of the claimants was rightly disbelieved by the High Court since no details of the train travel were disclosed in the claim application. No eyewitness was examined nor any railway ticket was found on the person of the victim. Referring to the evidence of the Superintendent, who had stated that there was no movement of any train at the relevant point of time, it was submitted that Railways had rebutted the evidence led by the claimants. It was rightly held that the injury in question sustained by the victim was a 'self-inflicted injury ' and, thus, no compensation was payable to the claimants under Sec. 124-A of the Act of 1989. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the High Court did not call for any interference and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.