[2026:RJ-JP:29175] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2787/2010 CNR: RJHC020036992010 | URN: CMA / 3930U / 2010 1. Tej Singh S/o Jeevan Singh, aged about 45 years. 2. Smt. Gheesi Devi wife of Shri Tej Singh, aged about 42 years. Both are R/o Mukam Post Bara Tarkeral, Tehsil Bhim, District Rajasamand (Rajasthan) ----Appellants Versus Union of India, through The General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek Mr. Manish Acharya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/07/2026 1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed by and on behalf of claimants, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of their Claim Petition bearing No.OA-II- 10/2006 vide judgment dated 24.12.2009 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, as culled out from record are that deceased was an unmarried son of appellants-claimants, who died in an accident occurred in the premise of Western Railways in the night of 18/19.07.2005. Admittedly, deceased bought a valid [2026:RJ-JP:29175] (2 of 5) [CMA-2787/2010] railway ticket for journey from Indore to Ahmedabad by Train No.9310 i.e. Indore-Gandhi Nagar Shanti Express (for short, 'Shanti Express') and when this train stopped near Khachrod Railway Station, he stepped down and got hit by an another train i.e. Rajdhani Express, passing through the adjacent railway track. Claimants tried to make out a case that deceased accidentally fell down from the running train i.e. Shanti Express and got hit by the Rajdhani Express, passing through the adjacent railway track, but such theory has not been believed by the Tribunal in the light of statement of one eye witness, namely, Shri Ramsevak, who appeared as DW-2 from the side of Western Railways, Union of India and on the basis of the inquiry report of Western Railways dated 24.07.2006. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the deceased stepped down from Shanti Express, which was running on Line No.1, and entered Line No.2 unauthorisedly to urinate and when he was sitting at Line No.2 to urinate, he got hit by train- Rajdhani Express, came on Line No.2. Accordingly, Tribunal held that the accidental death of deceased does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, rather the manner in which accident has occurred, attracts proviso (c) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and on that basis, Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of appellants-claimants. 4. Submission of counsel for appellants-claimants is that indisputably, deceased had a valid railway ticket and he died due to an accident which occurred on the railway track while travelling through train-Shanti Express on 18/19.07.2005. Therefore, as per the principle of strict liability, it is the Western Railway which should be held liable to pay compensation as per the principle of [2026:RJ-JP:29175] (3 of 5) [CMA-2787/2010] no fault liability. In order to apply the principle of strict liability, learned counsel has relied upon the two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. (i) Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in [(2008) 9 SCC 527] and (ii) Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in [(2019) 3 SCC 572]. 5. Further submission of counsel for appellants is that Tribunal erred in relying on the evidence of DW-2-Shri Ramsevak and the inquiry report of Western Railways, which was submitted belated on record. Learned counsel also made an attempt to persuade the Court that in the initial reply, filed by and on behalf of Western Railways, no such plea was raised, but later on, reply was got amended and a plea that deceased got hit by Rajdhani Express while urinating on the wrong track at Line No.2 was taken. His prayer is that the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2009 be set aside and respondent be ordered to pay compensation to claimants. 6. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India has supported the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2009 and submits that the fact findings recorded in the impugned judgment are based on evidence/material available on record and the principle of strict liability, does not apply at all in the present case. His prayer is that appeal is devoid of substance and same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. At the outset, it is noteworthy that the report dated 24.07.2006, placed on record by the Western Railways, was never questioned by the claimants. In addition, it is noteworthy that Shri Ramsevak-DW-2 is an eye witness to the accident and the fact [2026:RJ-JP:29175] (4 of 5) [CMA-2787/2010] that he was posted as Pointsman and was on duty on the date of accident, has not been disputed. 9. As per statements of DW-2, it is well evident that Shanti Express, in which deceased was travelling, stopped near Khachrod Railway Station at Line No.1. He has further deposed that few of the passengers from this train, stepped down and entered another line i.e. Line No.2 unauthorisedly to urinate. He has further stated that at the same time, on Line No.2, Rajdhani Express arrived and he warned the passengers to leave the track of Line No.2, but deceased did not listen and got hit by Rajdhani Express at Line No.2. In the report dated 24.07.2006 as well, based on the inquiry and evidence, same fact findings have been noted. 10. Apart from that it is noteworthy that no rebuttal evidence of claimants to counter the evidence of respondent, more particularly of DW-2, and the report dated 24.07.2006, has been placed on record. 11. Learned Tribunal, in the light of specific evidence, produced by respondent-non-claimant, disbelieved the theory made out by the claimants that death of the deceased occurred, while boarding his train-Shanti Express, he fell down and got hit by Rajdhani Express, passing through an adjacent track. Counsel for appellants-claimants could not satisfy this Court, the very basis of the theory made out by the claimants in the claim petition. 12. For the above reasons, the fact findings recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment impugned is based on the evidence on record and cannot be said to be suffering from perversity or from any manifest illegality or error. [2026:RJ-JP:29175] (5 of 5) [CMA-2787/2010] 13. Coming to the issue of application of strict liability, in the considered opinion of this Court, such principle does not come in play to support the case of claimants because claimants miserably failed to establish that the accident occurred due to any fault or negligence on the part of Railway Administration. Rather, it has come on record that accident occurred for the reason that deceased unauthorisedly trespassed from Line No.1 to Line No.2, to urinate and same has been observed by Tribunal as well. In the judgment of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the principle of strict liability has been further expounded after relying upon the oftly quoted and celebrated judgment of Rylands v. Fletcher [1866 LRI Ex 265]. There cannot be any quarrel about the proposition of law of the principle of strict liability, but as per the factual scenario, obtaining in the case at hand, such principle does not apply, hence, no benefit of such principle can be extended to the appellants-claimants. 14. The net outcome of above discussion is that the judgment impugned does not warrant interference by this Court and the appeal is bereft of merits and same is hereby dismissed. 15. Record of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, be sent back. 16. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 53-S/RONAK JAIMAN