“No Sane Person Would De-Board Running Train”: Gujarat High Court Upholds ₹8 Lakh Railway Accident Compensation, Rejects Suicide Theory

The Gujarat High Court dismissed Railways appeal against an order awarding compensation to the mother of a deceased passenger who fell after receiving a jolt and lost his life, rejecting the Railways claim that the deceased might have committed suicide or fallen down due to his own negligence.In doing so the court remarked that no sane person would attempt to de-board or alight from a running train. The court was hearing Railways appeal challenging Railway Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs with 9% interest to the kin of the deceased from the date of incident i.e. 17.04.2017 till date of realization.Justice JC Doshi in his order noted that the Investigating Officer under the Railway Passengers Rules did not complete the investigation within 60 days from the date of incident and therefore, it was a clear breach of Rule 7.2 of the Rules. The court observed that the finding of Tribunal remained uncontroverted that investigation had not been completed within time limit, rather it was completed on 18.03.2018 i.e. after one year of accident. As per Rule 7.2 of Railways to carry out investigation and report to Divisional Security Commissioner within 60 days."In aforesaid circumstances, when Railways failed to complete investigation within stipulated time period and further failed to lead evidence that deceased has committed suicide by jumping from train, learned Tribunal has rightly presumed that deceased fell from running train as he received jerk. No sane person would attempt to de-board or alight from running train. Therefore, appellant Railways has failed to prove its first contention".The deceased Prakash was travelling from Mumbai to Ahmedabad and accidentally fell from train, resulting in his death on the spot. Therefore, mother of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs by filing claim petition beforeTribunal. Railways contested the claim and denied all the averments raising a presumption that deceased might have committed suicide or fallen down due to his own negligence. It was contended that alleged incident is covered under section 124-A(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and thus, claimant is not entitled to compensation. It was argued that claimant failed to prove that deceased was traveling with ticket and since deceased was not bona fide passenger, the Tribunal committed illegality in granting compensation.It was submitted that the Divisional Railway Manager's report indicates that deceased fell from running train, which itself raise presumption that deceased due to his own negligence fell from train or might have committed suicide and in that event, Railways is not entitled to pay compensation.The claimant argued that she had filed affidavit stating that ticket purchased by the deceased was lost in the accident, besides that, she entered into witness box and stated the same thing on oath. This was not controverted in cross examination and thereby, Railways has accepted that deceased was travelling as bona fide passenger.It was submitted that as per rule 7.2 of the Railways Passengers (Manner of investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 Investigating Officer has to complete investigation within 60 days, however, in case on hand, Investigating Officer did not adhere to statutory time and therefore, report of the Investigating Officer cannot be taken into consideration. As far as Railways' second contention that deceased was not bona fide passenger, as claimant had failed to produce ticket, the court noted that the claimant said that deceased was travelling in train with ticket and as there was sudden jerk and jolt, deceased fell down from train and lost his ticket.The court observed that this fact was declared on affidavit and also on oath by the claimant. Moreover in the cross examination, it was not contended that deceased has not purchased ticket, rather what was asked to the claimant whether ticket was recovered from deceased. Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Rajni v/s. Union of India (2025) where it was held that mere absence of ticket with the deceased does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger, the court said that in the present case the Railways had failed to prove that deceased was not a bonafide passenger. "In aforesaid premises, it is proved that the deceased was bona fide passenger and he met with untoward accident and lost his life while he was travelling from Mumbai to Ahmedabad on 17.04.2017,"the court said dismissing the appeal.Case title: UNION OF INDIA v/s MANDABAI W/O SUKHDEV CHAVAN (MOTHER OF DECD.) R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 137

“No Sane Person Would De-Board Running Train”: Gujarat High Court Upholds ₹8 Lakh Railway Accident Compensation, Rejects Suicide Theory

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

“No Sane Person Would De-Board Running Train”: Gujarat High Court Upholds ₹8 Lakh Railway Accident Compensation, Rejects Suicide Theory

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers