Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.69 of 2019 (From the award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA No. 275 of 2015) Bilasini Biswal & 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 Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-20.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the instant Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the nil award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA No. 275 of 2015. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i)
Legal Reasoning
The appellants, being the parents of deceased Srinivas Biswal, filed a claim application under the Railway Claims Act seeking ₹4,00,000/- compensation on account of his death in an untoward incident. Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (ii) The case of the appellants was that on 25.11.2014, Srinivas Biswal was travelling from Jharsuguda to Damanjodi by the Rourkela–Koraput Express as a bona fide passenger with a valid general ticket (No. 13887905). At KM No. 326/04-08, between Therubali and Singhpur railway stations, he accidentally fell down from the running train and died on the spot. (iii) The GRPS, Rayagada registered UD Case No. 36/14 and investigated. Police, during the inquest, recorded recovery of the journey ticket from the deceased, confirmed by inquest report, postmortem report, and other papers. (iv) The respondent Railways contested, alleging that though a ticket was mentioned, it was a fabricated one, and denied both the deceased’s bona fide passenger status and the characterization of the event as an untoward incident. (v) Evidence led: appellants examined one witness and filed documents including Station Superintendent’s memo, inquest report, postmortem, challan, and journey ticket. Respondents examined one witness and relied only on the DRM report. (vi) The Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death did not constitute an untoward incident, thereby dismissing the claim application in toto. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of her contentions: Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (i) The Tribunal’s finding that the ticket was subsequently “added” in police papers is unsupported by pleadings or evidence from the Railways and is based on no evidence. Police records, inquest report, and final report all consistently record recovery of a valid journey ticket from the deceased. (ii) The Station Superintendent’s memo and GRPS investigation confirm the death was due to falling from a running train, making it an untoward incident under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act. The Tribunal’s contrary view is unsustainable. (iii) The investigating agency’s final report, postmortem, and inquest all conclude the death was caused by the fall, and no contrary evidence was adduced by the Railways. Reliance solely on the DRM report, without witnesses or substantive proof, is insufficient. (iv) Burden of proof lies on the Railways to show the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; the Tribunal wrongly shifted this burden on the claimants. (v) Section 124A of the Railways Act is a beneficial, welfare legislation. Unless the case falls under express exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, criminal act), the Railways’ liability to compensate is strict. None of those exceptions apply here. (vi) Once death occurs due to an untoward incident while travelling, the statutory liability of the Railways is automatic. The Tribunal’s finding to the contrary undermines the purpose of the legislation and wrongly deprives dependents of compensation. (vii) Hence, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim despite sufficient oral and documentary evidence establishing bona fide travel and accidental Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 death. The award is unsustainable, bad in law, and fit to be set aside with grant of compensation and interest. III. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT: 4. (i) The Tribunal, while dismissing the claim application, recorded the following key observations and conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger. It held that the journey ticket allegedly recovered was a later insertion and not genuine, relying on discrepancies between the inquest report and the post- mortem challan writings. (ii) It emphasized that at the time of inquest, no ticket was found in the deceased’s pocket, only identity documents were recovered. The court found it “inexplicable” that the post-mortem doctor could have discovered a ticket when none was recorded in earlier police papers. This led to the conclusion that the ticket was fabricated and added subsequently. (iii) The Tribunal found no eyewitness or co-passenger testimony to substantiate that the deceased fell from the running train. It cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Sulochanamma v. Union of India1 to highlight that many such claims are advanced on speculative theories without corroborative evidence. (iv) The Tribunal discredited the testimony of AW-1 (father of the deceased), as he admitted he had no personal knowledge of the incident and only heard about it from relatives. The alleged informant and GRPS officers, who could have been material witnesses, were not examined. 1 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.426/2013 (RCT) Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (v) The Tribunal attached weight to the DRM’s report and noted that it was not challenged during the proceedings. It considered this report as supporting the respondent’s stand that the deceased was not a passenger and did not fall from the train. (vi) The medical opinion in the postmortem was interpreted against the claimants: the Tribunal observed that the body was found in pieces, suggesting a run-over by train, which in its view was inconsistent with a fall from the running train. This became a key factor in rejecting the “untoward incident” theory. (vii) On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal held that the Railways were protected under Section 124 of the Railways Act, since the claim did not fall under the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c). (viii) Consequently, issues 1-3 were decided against the claimants, and the Tribunal declined to examine dependency or relief (issues 4-5). The claim was dismissed without costs IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the documents placed before this Court. It is evident from the record that the deceased was travelling by train and died due to a fall from the train. The Station Superintendent’s memo and the GPRS inquest report both recorded that the deceased fell from the Rourkela-Koraput Express and died on the spot. This occurrence squarely fits the definition of an “untoward incident” under Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, i.e. an accidental falling of a passenger from a train. 7. The Railway Claims Tribunal, however, doubted that the incident was a fall from the train, noting the severe injuries (dismemberment) and speculating that the death might have been due to being run over rather than a fall. This Court finds such a distinction misdirected. An accidental fall from a moving train can often result in the passenger being run over by the same train or another, causing grievous injuries. That does not change the character of the incident as an “accidental fall” during the course of travel. There was no evidence of any alternative scenario, such as the deceased being on the tracks by acts unrelated to his train journey. The contemporaneous documents, the inquest report, post-mortem report and final police report, consistently conclude that the death was caused by a fall from the train. Thus, on facts, the incident must be treated as an untoward incident. Moreover, the law is clear that such provisions must be interpreted liberally to advance their beneficent object. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors.2 has emphasized that Section 124A, being a welfare legislation, should not be read in a restrictive manner that would deprive genuine victims of compensation; an accidental falling of a passenger from a train includes falls while boarding or travelling, and a purposive, not literal, interpretation must be adopted. The relevant excerpts are produced below: 2 Appeal (civil) 6898 of 2002. Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 “In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle-class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.” 9. The next question is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The appellants (claimants) have consistently asserted that the deceased held a valid journey ticket (General Ticket No. 13887905 from Jharsuguda to Damanjodi), which was recovered from his body during the investigation. The inquest report prepared by the police on the very day of the incident noted the recovery of this ticket from the pant pocket of the deceased, and the Final Report of the GRPS also confirms the same. In the face of these official records, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the ticket was a later fabrication or “planted” is entirely baseless, notably, the Railways had not even pleaded any such theory of subsequent insertion of a ticket, nor led evidence to that effect. 10. On the contrary, the sole witness for the Railways (RW-1, a railway official) did not dispute the contents of the police report; the Railways Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 relied mainly on a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) enquiry report but did not produce the author of that report for cross-examination. In law, once the claimant shows prima facie that the passenger was travelling (for instance, by producing a valid ticket or other evidence of journey), the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the presumption of bonafide travel. 11. In fact, to this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. 12. Rina Devi3 has clarified as follows: “We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway 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 the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” In the present case, the evidence of the recovered ticket (supported by AW-1’s unrebutted testimony and the official records) more than satisfies the initial burden. The Railways, for its part, failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the deceased was without a ticket or not a bona fide passenger. Mere suggestions or an unproved internal report cannot take the place of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is against the weight of evidence and is unsustainable. On the established facts, the deceased had a valid ticket and was a lawful passenger on the train. 3 AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2362. Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 13. The Tribunal placed undue emphasis on the fact that there was no eyewitness to the fall and appeared to disbelieve the claim since no co- passenger was examined. Such an approach is misplaced in claims under Section 124A. By the very nature of railway accidents, especially falls from trains, there are often no direct eyewitnesses willing or able to testify. The absence of an eyewitness does not ipso facto negate the claim, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and official records strongly support the occurrence of an untoward incident. 14. In Jameela v. Union of India4, a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court chastised the High Court for rejecting a claim on the ground of the passenger’s alleged negligence in the absence of any eyewitness account. The Court observed that the Railways’ theory that the deceased was negligent (standing at the open door) was “entirely based on speculation…there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway”. 15. Here too, the conclusion that the deceased was not actually on the train or that the fall did not occur is premised on speculation rather than evidence. The official investigation on record leaves no doubt that the death was due to a fall from the train. The so-called discrepancies pointed out by the Tribunal (like whether the ticket was noted in the inquest or post-mortem challan) are minor or illusory and do not override the clear and consistent narrative of an accidental fall. The internal DRM report relied on by the Railways, which suggested the deceased was not a passenger, was never proved in accordance with law. It was an ex parte report prepared for departmental purposes, and 4 (2010) 12 SCC 443. Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 its contents were not tested by witness testimony. In the absence of any admissible evidence contradicting the police inquiry findings, the Tribunal ought not to have given primacy to such a report. In short, there was no factual basis to dispute the claim that the deceased fell from the train. 16. Section 124A of the Railways Act embodies a no-fault liability or strict liability regime for railway accidents termed “untoward incidents.” This means that when a passenger dies or is injured in the course of a railway operation, and it is not due to the passenger’s own felonious or suicidal act, etc., the Railways must compensate, irrespective of negligence or wrongful act by the Railways. The provision expressly excludes a narrow set of circumstances in which compensation can be denied, namely, if the death or injury was caused by: (a) suicide or attempted suicide; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) the passenger’s own criminal act; (d) any act committed by the passenger in a state of intoxication or insanity; or (e) natural cause or disease not connected with the journey. 17. The present case plainly does not fall under any of these exceptions. There is no suggestion that the deceased intended to harm himself or committed any crime, he was simply traveling on a train when the accident happened. The Tribunal’s reasoning, however, effectively introduced a non-existent exception by blaming the victim’s alleged negligence (standing at the door or such) as a ground to deny compensation. This approach cannot be countenanced in light of binding precedents. Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 18. Any contributory negligence by the passenger does not bar the claim, since the statute imposes liability notwithstanding such factors. The underlying rationale is to promptly and generously compensate victims of rail accidents, rather than involve them in protracted fault-finding litigation. In the case at hand, the Tribunal’s denial of relief to the claimants (aged parents of the deceased) runs counter to these principles. Absent evidence of any excepted circumstance, the death of a bona fide passenger due to a fall from a train obligates the Railways to pay the statutory compensation. The findings of the Tribunal to the contrary are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. 19. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned nil award of the Railway Claims Tribunal is unsustainable in law and on facts. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, and it is held that the deceased’s demise was caused by an “untoward incident” while he was a bona fide passenger. The appellants (parents of the deceased) are therefore entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. At the time of the incident (November 2014), the statutory compensation for death was ₹4,00,000. However, during the pendency of these proceedings, the amount has been enhanced to ₹8,00,000 by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. 20. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent Union of India (Railways) to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellants as compensation for the death of their son. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 claim application till the date of payment, inasmuch as the claimants have been kept out of this money due to the unjust denial of their legitimate claim.
Decision
21. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/ (Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Page 12 of 12