Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O No. 119 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Tilotama Patri …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, CGC. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-19.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025 Dr. SanjeebK Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenge the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A./II(U)/ 2016/152 dismissing her claim application for
Legal Reasoning
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: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (i) On 11.11.2012, the deceased Ganeswar Patri was travelling from Koratur to Chennai Central Railway Station in a general compartment of the train, due to push and pull of co- passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train near Villivakkum home signal of Perambur Railway Station, Chennai-II, as a result he sustained fatal injuries and died on the same day. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and the ticket was lost during the course of the incident. (ii) The Police, during the inquest recorded cause of death of the deceased to be fall down from running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report and other papers. (iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted OA/II(U)/2016/152 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989, on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly occasioned by an “untoward incident”. (iv) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded that the victim died to his own negligence and was not a bona fide passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed. Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019 passed in OA/II(U)/2016/152 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellants preferred this appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Appellants submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside. (ii) The Appellants further contended that the Inquest Report, the Postmortem Report, and the Final Report, unanimously conclude that the death of the deceased was due to fall from the train. No cogent or contrary evidence has been adduced by the Railways to
Legal Reasoning
rebut these findings. It was urged that mere reliance on the DRM’s report, unsupported by witness testimony or substantive proof, cannot from the sole basis for denying the claim. (iii) It is well-settled proposition of law that, as the Railway Administration appoints ticket collector to verify the travel authority of passengers, an institutional mechanism is in place to ascertain whether a person was bona fide passenger. In such circumstances, a presumption of regularity operates in favour of Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 the passenger, and it may be legally inferred that the deceased, being presumed innocent, had complied with the law and purchased a valid ticket prior to boarding the train. (iv) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants have produced sufficient materials to establish that the deceased was travelling from Koratur to Chennai Central Railway Station, and fell from the running train, sustained injuries and subsequently scummed to them. The absence of ticket recovery, or any allegation of criminal negligence, does not undermine the claim within the ambit of Section 124A. The incident squarely falls within the definition of an ‘untoward incident’, and none of the statutory exceptions are attracted. (v) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2019 passed in O/II(U)/2016/152 by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, Bhubaneswar may be set aside, as the same is not sustainable in law. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) In cases arising out of “untoward incidents”, the initial evidentiary burden indisputably rests upon the claimant to establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory presumptions of accidental causation of death as envisaged under Section 124A of the Act. From the circumstances surrounding the alleged death, it does not appear to be a case of accidental fall from a running Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 train but indicates a suicidal run over. Such conduct falls within the exceptions contemplated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Respondents. (ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge this primary onus. The surrounding circumstances, when objectively assessed in the light of the available record, do not lend credence to the theory of an accidental fall from a running train; rather they un mistakably point towards a self-inflicted act. (iii) The Learned Tribunal observed that the Appellants seen to be motivated by an ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather than being based on truthful narration of facts. Hence, her testimony could not be accorded any probative and was rightly discarded as unreliable. (iv) The Appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of establishing that deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. The physical examination of the deceased’s dead body and his belongings does not indicate the recovery of any travel ticket therefrom. So, the statutory liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the claim application is rendered untenable in law and not maintainable. Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 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. 6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased was not established to be bona fide passenger. It found that the journey ticket was not recovered. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased. 7. It was further observed that the applicant, having filed her affidavit and been cross examined as A..W.1 by the learned counsel for the Respondent, is admittedly not an eyewitness to the incident, as she was not accompanying the deceased during his alleged journey. A.W.1. is wholly unaware of the circumstances relating to the journey or alleged fall of deceased from any train. 8. It was also observed that, during the course of dictation of the judgment, a serious contradiction emerged with regard to the name of the deceased. While the claim application discloses the name of the deceased as Ganeswar Patri, the F.I.R. records the identity of the deceased as Mr. Tulu. The Applicant has offered no explanation whatsoever for this inconsistency in the name of the deceased. 9. The Tribunal held that such circumstances on record do not indicate or substantiate that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train. Consequently, the occurrence cannot be construed as an “untoward incident”. Since the establishment of an incident is sine qua Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 non for entitlement to statutory compensation under Section 124A of the Act, the failure to satisfy this foundational requirement disentitles the claimants to relief. Accordingly, the Railways stands absolved of liability under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act. 10. The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the Divisional Railway Manager’s (DRM) Report, observing that the same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants that the same remain unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants during the course of the proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, treated the said report as a material piece of corroborative evidence supporting the Respondents’ contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no incident of accidental fall from a running train had in fact occurred. This uncontroverted report, in the considered view of the Tribunal, lent substantial credence to the Respondents’ version and consequently fortified the ultimate conclusion leading to dismissal of the claim application. 11. Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 12. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 13. The central questions that arise for consideration are: Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (a) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (b) 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? (c) Whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A? A. Legal Position: Liability under Section 124-A (i) Section 124-A embodies a regime of no-fault liability, under which, once it is established that the death or injury resulted from an “untoward incident”, the entitlement to compensation follows as a statutory consequence, irrespective of any negligence or default on the part of the Railway Administration. The liability is excluded only in the limited contingencies contemplated in the proviso (suicide or attempted suicide, self- inflicted injury, the victim’s own criminal act, intoxication or insanity and injury arising from natural causes or disease). The legislative scheme thus consciously shifts the focus from attributing fault to establishing causation (ii) The Supreme Court has consistently held that an accidental fall from a train squarely constitutes an “untoward incident”. It has further clarified that recovery of a journey ticket is not a sine qua non where the surrounding circumstances reasonably probabilise that the passenger was travelling by train. Once the claimant establishes a credible foundational case, the burden shifted to the Railways to demonstrate that the occurrence falls Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 within one of the excepted categories enumerated in the proviso to Section 124. (iii) This legal position has been reiterated in a catena of decisions, particularly in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, wherein it was observed that: “29. 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.” The Tribunal is therefore required to adopt a pragmatic and victim- centric approach, in consequence with the beneficial object of the statute. B. Bona fide passenger: standard and burden (i) The Tribunal insisted proof “beyond doubt” of travel by a particular train and of the possession of a valid ticket. Such a standard is legally untenable. Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are summary and compensatory in nature, not criminal and the appropriate test is that of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (ii) In the present case, the journey ticket No. was duly produced by the Appellants before the Tribunal but the Tribunal’s conclusion that the ticket was ‘planted’ by the Appellants is unsupported by any pleading or evidence on record. By introducing a third version of its own and returning a finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the case. Such finding is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. C. Untoward incident (i) The Tribunal faulted the Appellant for not examining co- passengers and further opined that the journey ticket has been subsequently planted. Neither omission is fatal in a summary compensation regime, especially when the contemporaneous official records consistently indicate a railway fall. The law does not demand perfect evidence; it requires a reliable preponderance of probability. The DRM report and police papers, read in conjunction with the location of the body and the nature of injuries recorded therein, furnish sufficient basis to infer an accidental fall, particularly in the absence of any plea or proof suggesting suicide, intoxication, insanity, or any element of mens rea constituting a “criminal act” on the part of the victim. (ii) The Court observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 creates a no-fault liability on the part of the Railway Administration in cases where death and injury occurs due to an Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 “untoward incident.” unless the case falls within one of the enumerated exceptions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar2, held that “……..11. it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our liberal and wider receive a opinion, interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretation and not a narrow and technical one”. (iii) The Act compensates the incident, not the claimant’s precision in should it train nomenclature. On a calibrated appraisal, this Court conclude as follow: (a) The Appellant have established, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who accidentally fell from a running train on 11.11.2012 near Villivakkum home signal of Perambur Railway Station, Chennai-II. The occurrence squarely constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. (b) The Railways, on the other hand, have failed to discharge the statutory burden of bringing the case within any 2 (2008) 9 SCC 527 Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 exceptions enumerated under Section 124-A. The Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim, predicated upon rigid evidentiary exceptions and conjectural suspicion, stands in derogation of the benevolent object of the legislation and the settled principles governing its interpretation. 14. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that, notwithstanding certain minor discrepancies in the evidentiary record, a judicious and balanced evaluation of the material unmistakably tilts the scale in favour of the Appellants. The case set up by the Appellants rests on a firmer legal foundation, whereas the Railway Administration has failed to discharge the evidentiary burden incumbent upon it to bring the occurrence within any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. While the Appellants have satisfactorily discharged their initial burden, the corresponding onus that thereafter shifted to the Railway Administration has remained wholly unfulfilled. VI. CONCLUSION: 15. In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA/II(U)/2016/152 cannot be sustained in law and hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the deceased Shri Ganeswar Patri, met his death in an “untoward incident” within the meaning and contemplation of Section 124A of the Act, and the Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 deceased was a bona fide passenger entitled to the protection and benefits envisaged under the said statutory provision. 16. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 17. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual payment. 18. The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the Appellant proportionately by way of account transfer or cheque and the rest of the amount to be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the Tribunal. 19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th November, 2025/ Page 13 of 13