Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O No.56 of 2019 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Puspanjali Sahoo &Anr. …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-10.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No. OA No.223 of 2015 which dismissed their claim application for compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) As per the original claim application, on the date of the incident i.e. 17.05.2015, the deceased Bharat Sahoo was travelling from Khurda Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Road to Cuttack on the strength of valid journey ticket by Puri- Rourkela Passenger Train. (ii) During the course of the journey, the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was heavily overcrowded. It is stated that owing to a sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes, coupled with the push and pull of fellow passengers, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train shortly after it departed from Khurda Road Railway Station. Following the incident, he was immediately rescued and shifted to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, thereafter referred to Prime Hospital, and subsequently taken to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where he succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.2015 during the course of treatment. (iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 223 of 2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of the deceased in the untoward incident. (iv) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues for determination and upon, detailed examination, concluded that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor victim of any untoward incident. Consequently, the claim application was dismissed, though without imposing any cost. Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 (v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed in the Original Application No. 223 of 2015 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Appellantsrespectfully submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, dismissing the Original Application in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from gross misappreciation of the material facts and legal provisions. (ii) Appellants contended that during the course of trail, the claimants have filed a petition seeking for amendment of the pleadings to correct the name of the train in which the deceased was travelling. It was submitted that due to an inadvertent error, the train was initially mentioned as Puri- Rourkela Passenger, whereas in fact, the deceased was travelling in the Konark Express. The said amendment was sought bona fide to rectify the clerical mistake and to bring the pleadings in conformity with the actual facts of the case. (iii) The Tribunal, however declined to allow the amendment petition and proceeded to pronounce the award on the same day. It was observed therein that the journey ticket recovered from the pocket Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 of the deceased did not establish that he was travelling in the Puri- Rourkela Passenger Train. The Tribunal further held that the ticket relied upon by the appellants appeared to be fabricated and was likely introduced at a later stage during the proceedings. Consequently, the Learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased had failed to establish his status as a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the provisions of the Railway Act, and therefore, the claim was not maintainable. (iv) The Appellants further submitted that the contemporaneous official records issued by the Police Authorities- including the Inquest Report, Post- Mortem Report and Final Investigation Report- constitute unimpeachable documentary evidence, all of which conclusively establish that the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in an untoward incident occurring during the course of a lawful and bona fide journey. (v) Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, being a beneficial and welfare-orientated provision, embodies the principle of strict or no- fault liability, thereby imposing upon the Railway Administration an absolute and statutory obligation to compensate the dependents of a deceased passenger whose death results from an “untoward incident”, except in situations expressly enumerated under the
Legal Reasoning
proviso thereto- none of which, ex facie, stand attracted to the facts of the present case. The provision, conceived in furtherance of the State’s social welfare mandate, warrants a liberal and purposive interpretation, rather than a narrow or pedantic one that would Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 defeat its remedial intent. Once the essential facts establishing the deceased’s bona fide passengership and the occurrence of death as a consequence of an untoward incident are proved, the liability of the Railway’s arises ipso jure- automatically and independent of any consideration of fault, negligence, or mens rea. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) In adjudications emanating under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the evidentiary onus at the threshold indubitably rests upon the claimant to establish, upon the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, the foundational or jurisdictional facts necessary to tigger the statutory presumption of liability- namely, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the fatality in question was occasioned by an untoward incident within the statutory contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The discharge of this evidentiary burden is a sine qua non to the invocation of the remedial jurisdiction under the said provision. In the present case, the Appellants have manifestly fallen short of satisfying this requirement. (ii) A meticulous scrutiny of the contemporaneous documentary corpus and the surrounding factual matrix militates against the hypothesis of an accidental fall from a moving train and, contrarily, yields a preponderant inference of a self-inflicted injury. Such conduct, being ex facie subsumed within the exclusionary ambit of Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 the proviso to Section 124A, is statutorily immunized from the operation of the rule of the strict liability that otherwise attaches under the main provision. (iii) Ergo, the occurrence in question cannot, either de jure or de facto, be subsumed within the definitional ambit of an “untoward incident” as envisaged under the Act. Consequently, no compensatory liability can, in law, be fastened upon the Respondent- Railway Administration, the claim being barred by the express legislative exclusion engrafted in the statutory scheme. (iv) The Appellants have failed to discharge the foundational burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling under the authority of a valid journey ticket at that point in time. In the absence of any cogent, credible, or corroborative evidence establishing bona fide passengership, the indispensable precondition for the invocation of statutory liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 remains unfulfilled. The claim, thus bereft of the requisite factual and legal foundation, stands rendered unsustainable and non- maintainable within the statutory framework, as the sine qua non for attracting the principle of strict liability is conspicuously absent. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench heard the parties, perused the documents on record, and upon the basis of the pleadings framed five issues for consideration. Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application primarily on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger. It observed that the journey ticket allegedly recovered from the deceased appeared was a later insertion and not genuine as discrepancies were noted between the timings of the trains referred to in the ticket and the train mentioned in the Original Application. On such findings, the Tribunal concluded that the authenticity of the ticket stood doubtful and the claimants had failed to establish lawful travel of the deceased in the said train. Accordingly, the claim was held to be unsustainable for want of proof of bona fide passengership. 7. It is further noted, from the statement of the Guard of the Puri–Rourkela Passenger Train, that the train was brought to a halt when the Loco Pilot noticed an injured person lying alive but speechless in the middle of the track. The Tribunal observed that this circumstance, coupled with the absence of any direct or cogent evidence linking the injuries to an accidental fall from the train, seriously undermines the claim that the death occurred in the course of travel. On the contrary, the evidence on record indicates that the incident was the result of a self-inflicted injury rather than an accidental fall constituting an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances of the case does not establish had accidentally fall from the train, and therefore the occurrence could not be construed as an “untoward incident”. Such is sine qua non of compensation under Section 124A, namely, proof of an accidental fall during the course of travel, was found to be absent. Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, that the incident did not constitute an ”untoward incident” under the Act, and that the Railways were entitled to the protection afforded by the exception clause appended to Section 124A. 9. Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were decided against the claimants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal declined to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 11. The central questions that arise for consideration are: (i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (ii) whether the incident amounts to an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989? and (iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A? 12. This Court observed that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 13. The Learned Tribunal entertained a doubt as whether the incident constituted a fall from the train, speculating instead that the death Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 might have been occasioned by a self-inflicted injury. This Court is of the considered view that such a distinction is legally untenable. The contemporaneous records- the inquest report, post-mortem report and final investigation report, unequivocally attribute the cause of the death to a fall from the train. In the circumstances, the Court hold that the incident squarely qualifies as an “untoward incident” under the statutory scheme, entitling the claimants to the benefit of compensation. 14. It is further observed that once the primary facts, namely, the death of a passenger in an “untoward incident” and that such passenger was a bona fide passenger, stood established, the liability of the Railway Administration became absolute and unconditional. The Court has emphasized that the absence of any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the Railway Administration is immaterial, as Section 124- A of the Railways Act expressly embodies the principle of strict liability. Thus, the Railway Administration is held accountable regardless of fault, ensuring protection and compensation for passengers. 15. Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Courtin the case of Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and Others1, whereunder it has been held that: “9.………………………… By the explanation of the said section classifying 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 1(2023) 19 SCC 116 Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 10. This Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi2, has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. “29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railways 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 relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on facts shown or attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with form case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 16. On the issue of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal placed undue reliance on the production of the journey ticket and held that it was a fabricated document. This court, however,finds that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger, as the journey ticket was duly produced by the Appellant. In line of the settled legal position, once the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger is established, the claim under Section124-A of the Railways Act cannot be denied. Reliance is placed onDoli Rani Saha v. Union of India3, wherein it was held that the initial burden lies on claimant, who may be discharged it by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim. The Court further emphasised that the 2(2019) 3 SCC 572 3(2024) 8SCR 391 Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 mere absence of a ticket at the time of inquest cannot, by itself, negate the claim of bona fide passengership. 17. In the present case, the applicants produced cogent evidence of a valid journey ticket that was found from the pocket of the deceased, which consistently states that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from a running train. But the Appellants due clerical error mentioned about the wrong train in their Original Application. The Respondents, however, failed to produce any substantive and credible material to rebut this evidence, and instead relied on speculative observations contained in the DRM’s inquiry report. 18. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence on record, the Court finds thatthe inadvertent error in mentioning the name of the train was occasioned due to the illiteracy and lack of understanding of the Appellants. It is further borne out that, being devastated by the tragic loss of their son, who was en-route to appear in an entrance examination and lay the foundation for his future career- the Appellants were in a state of profound emotional distress. The circumstances under which they witnesses the untimely demise of their son understandably contributed to such inadvertent mistake. VI. CONCLUSION: 19. Upon an exhaustive appraisal of the evidentiary matrix and the statutory framework, this Court is of the considered view that the matter warrants remand to the learned Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall reconsider the case afresh on the Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 basis of the amended claim petition filed by the claimants and adjudicate the same on its own merits, upon due appreciation of the evidence already available on record and any further evidence that may be duly adduced in accordance with law 20. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 296 of 2017 is set aside. 21. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 22. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent Union of India (Railways) to pay sum of Rs 8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakhs) to the appellants as compensation. This amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law. 23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/ Page 12 of 12