15-FA-629-21.DOCX rsk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.629 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4217 OF 2021 The Union Of India Thr.The General Manager, Mumbai … Appellant-Orig. Respondent Versus Mr.Anil Trikam Kaliwada … Respondent-Orig. Claimant _____________________________________________________ Ms. Delilah Fernandes , for Appellant. Mr. Sainand Chougule, for Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : Jitendra Jain, J. DATED : 08 January 2026 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Admit. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This appeal is filed by the Union of India-appellant/respondent challenging an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 26 November 2020 whereby the claim made by the applicant/respondent was allowed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Page 1 RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Date: 2026.01.08 17:14:34 +0530 15-FA-629-21.DOCX 4. On 16 August 2013, the injured along with his two friends purchased platform tickets to see off his maternal cousin who was to travel by Vadodara Express to Surat. While his two friends were purchasing snacks, the injured was inside the train to see off his maternal cousin and train started as per its time. The injured in a hurry to get down from the train made an attempt to alight while the train was moving and in that process fell down and his two legs were injured and had to be amputated. This information was received by the Station Master and the patient was sent to Nair hospital. 5. The Tribunal has accepted that the injured fell down from the moving train and sustained injuries to his legs which constituted “untoward incident”. The Tribunal also accepted that the injured was a “bonafide passenger” since he had purchased platform ticket. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant states that a person holding platform ticket cannot remain in the train. In my view, when a person purchases platform ticket to see off somebody it is not that he remains on the station only but generally enters the compartment to assist the passenger to keep luggage and to see off. At times it may happen that the person holding platform ticket is inside the train chitchatting with the passenger and the train starts. In the instant case, the injured did not want to be in the compartment when the train was moving and therefore tried to alight the train and in the process suffered the injuries. On the platform ticket it is Page 2 15-FA-629-21.DOCX nowhere mentioned that the person purchasing platform ticket while the train is at station cannot enter the compartment. The incident is accidental only and not negligent. 7. In my view, the findings of the Tribunal are not dislodge to be perverse. There is no dispute that the injured was a bonafide passenger since he had purchased platform ticket. There is also no dispute that the injured was trying to alight the train when the train started moving. Therefore, it cannot be said that the person holding platform ticket was trying to travel in the train. In my view this incident cannot be treated as “negligence”. I approve the reasoning given by the Tribunal. 8. In view of above, the order of the Tribunal dated 26 November 2020 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 9. The respondent/applicant is permitted to make application to the Tribunal for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant as per the Tribunal’s order along with the interest till the date of payment. 10. Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, Interim/Civil Application does not survive. (Jitendra Jain, J.) Page 3