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.36 of 2021 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Bhanu Majhi …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Sambit Das, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Behera, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-13.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A.(IIU) Case No.234 of 2016 dismissing her claim application for compensation arising out of the death of her daughter 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 factual matrix as set out in the case reveals that: Page 1 of 17 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 23.05.2016 the deceased, Smt. Pada Majhi, undertook a journey from Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi aboarding the Visakhapatnam–Durg Passenger Train. During the said journey, she is stated to have accidentally fallen from the moving train between Kantabanjhi and Muribahal Railway Stations, resulting in her instantaneous death. (ii) The Appellant asserts that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, having duly purchased her journey ticket, which unfortunately went missing in the very course of the untoward incident which led to a circumstance that has repeatedly been acknowledged in judicial precedents as a plausible and natural consequence of accidental falls which has been succinctly dealt in Union of India v. Rina Devi1. (iii) Upon the recovery of the body, the Government Railway Police Station, Kantabanji registered U.D. Case No. 15 dated 23.05.2016 under the appropriate provisions and undertook the statutory investigation. The inquest and post-mortem report, along with other contemporaneous materials, form part of the record and shed light on the nature of the injuries sustained. (iv) The Respondent/Railway contested the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal and advanced the plea that the incident was not a fall from a running train but a run-over case. Construing the episode as one falling outside the statutory definition of an 1(2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 2 of 17
Legal Reasoning
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” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Respondents further argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. (v) This defence is one that bears a significant evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration, for Section 124-A embodies a principle of no-fault liability, and the presumption ordinarily operates in favour of the victim unless the Railways establish one of the statutory exceptions. (vi) The Appellant, the mother of the deceased, entered the witness box as A.W.1, filed her affidavit-in-evidence, and was duly cross- examined. To corroborate the claim that the deceased had (a) purchased a ticket and (b) accidentally fallen from the moving train, the Appellant also examined A.W.3, an eyewitness whose testimony lends material support to the foundational facts of bona fide travel and accidental fall. (vii) Judicial pronouncements consistently hold that once the claimant establishes the basic facts of boarding the train and the accidental fall, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the presumption in favour of the claimant. In this respect, the evidence led by the Appellant was neither inherently improbable nor contradicted by any unimpeachable material. (viii) Despite the above, the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, after framing the requisite issues, proceeded to dismiss the claim application by its Judgment dated Page 3 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 06.01.2020 in O.A. No. 234 of 2016. The Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident,” thereby disentitling the Appellant from the statutory compensation. (ix) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 06.01.2020, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal, assailing the findings as contrary to the evidence on record, inconsistent with statutory presumptions under the Railways Act, and out of step with the authoritative jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court on accidental fall cases. 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 Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, is wholly unsustainable in law. It is argued that the impugned judgment suffers from misappreciation of material evidence, misapplication of statutory presumptions, and a fundamental error in evaluating the contemporaneous records pertaining to the alleged untoward incident which resulted in the death of the Appellant’s unmarried daughter. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are asserted to be contrary to the weight of evidence and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 It is contended that the claim petition was preferred under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking
Legal Reasoning
statutory compensation on account of the death of Smt. Pada Majhi on 23.05.2016. The deceased was travelling, by authority of a valid journey ticket, from Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi in the Visakhapatnam–Durg Passenger Train and accidentally fell from the moving train between Kantabanjhi and Muribahal Railway Stations. ii. The Appellant further submits that the journey ticket was lost in the course of the accident—a circumstance long recognised in railway accident jurisprudence as neither unusual nor fatal to the claim. As the deceased was unmarried, the Appellant, being her mother, was the sole dependent and entitled in law to maintain the claim. iii. The Appellant places strong reliance on the testimony of A.W.3, Shri Murali Majhi, who filed his affidavit and was subjected to cross-examination by the Respondent. A.W.3 unequivocally deposed that he was a co-passenger and had personally witnessed the deceased fall from the moving train. He had also furnished his statement before G.R.O.P., Kantabanjhi contemporaneously with the occurrence. His evidence, it is urged, robustly supports the foundational facts of (a) bona fide travel, and (b) accidental fall , the facts which shift the Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 evidentiary burden onto the Railway Administration under established jurisprudence. iv. The testimony of A.W.3 stands materially corroborated by the deposition of R.W., Shri Lalan Prasad Singh, the Inquiry Officer/SI, RPF, Titlagarh. In cross-examination, he conceded that the investigative material indicated that the deceased had indeed fallen from the train. v. Furthermore, the Inquest Report, Final Report, and other police papers, all of which form part of the record, consistently affirm the theory of accidental fall. In light of these materials, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) is asserted to have been misconceived, for the said decision, properly appreciated, in fact strengthens the Appellant’s case by reiterating that the loss of ticket during an untoward incident does not negate bona fide travel and that the claimant is entitled to statutory presumptions under Section 124- A of the Railways Act. vi. The Appellant further argues that the Tribunal erred in treating the absence of the ticket as indicative of unauthorised travel. Ticketless travel, though impermissible, is visited by penal consequences under Section 138(4) of the Railways Act, 1989, and does not automatically imply deliberate evasion attracting a finding of mala fides. Page 6 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 vii. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of regularity and innocence attaches to the conduct of a passenger unless rebutted by cogent evidence. It is contended that the Railway Administration, vested with ample authority to check tickets or apprehend unauthorized travellers, led no evidence to show that the deceased was travelling without a ticket or had engaged in unlawful travel. viii. In the absence of such rebuttal, the presumption of bona fide travel must ensure to the benefit of the deceased, consistent with the ratio in Rina Devi (supra) and other binding judgment ix. In view of the above submissions, the Appellant prays that the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 234 of 2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, be set aside as being contrary to the evidence on record, untenable in law, and inconsistent with the statutory mandate governing compensation for untoward incidents. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the Respondent made the following submissions: i. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent contends that the inquiry materials unequivocally establish that no untoward incident occurred in the Visakhapatnam–Durg Passenger Train on the relevant date and time. The statements of Sri J. Das, on-duty Loco Pilot, and Sri L. V. Rajulu, on-duty Guard of Train No. 58530, Page 7 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 reveal that on 23.05.2016 they worked the train from Titilagarh to Raipur and that the train reached Raipur at 13.12 hours without any Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP), detention, disturbance, or report of an accident at any point along the section. ii. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant has wholly failed to discharge the initial burden of establishing that the deceased suffered an accidental fall from the train. The surrounding circumstances, when assessed in light of the record, do not support the theory of an accidental fall, rather the circumstances appear consistent with a self-inflicted or unrelated incident, unconnected with railway operations. Furthermore, the contemporaneous investigative documents like the FIR, Inquest Report, Dead Body Chalan, Post-Mortem Report, and Final Report do not record the recovery of any journey ticket from the deceased. iii. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further asserts that the deceased cannot be regarded as a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket or travel authority was recovered during inquest operation or investigation. No eyewitness has emerged to support the claim that the deceased was travelling in the train or fell from it. The on-duty crew of the alleged train categorically denied having noticed any unusual occurrence or receiving any information regarding such an incident. Page 8 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 iv. The Respondent further places reliance on the inconsistent narrative raised by the Appellant, who stated that the deceased and her elder brother, one Rajendra Majhi, had proceeded to Kantabanjhi to withdraw money from a bank. According to the Appellant’s own account, they became separated in the Kantabanjhi market, and subsequently the deceased’s body was discovered near Bangomunda Level Crossing Gate, which is proximate to the market area. However, no missing report or FIR was lodged by the family at any police station. These inconsistencies, it is urged, undermine the Appellant’s version and cast serious doubt on the alleged railway travel. v. The Ld Counsel for the Respondent further contends that the Appellant herself stated that the deceased suffered from a mental disorder and that she did not know how or why her daughter came to be run over by a train. Such an admission, according to the Respondent, negates the allegation of accidental fall from a moving train and points instead towards an unfortunate incident unconnected with any railway negligence. In this backdrop, it may be stated that no fault whether in the nature of negligence, omission, or operational lapse can be attributed to the Railway Administration. vi. Placing reliance on the Final Report prepared by the Police, the Respondent asserts that it stands “well established” that the deceased had never commenced any train journey on the date of Page 9 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 the occurrence. Consequently, it is argued that the statutory ingredients of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 are not fulfilled. vii. Since no wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the Railway Administration has been demonstrated, and as the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, it is submitted that the claim is untenable within the statutory framework governing liability under Section 124-A. Accordingly, the dismissal of the Original Application is justified and calls for no interference. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 5. Upon considering the materials placed on record, the learned Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication and proceeded to decide the same upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties. 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. The Tribunal observed that, whole of the case of the applicant as propounded in the claim application qua alleged journey of the deceased and her accidental fall from the train stands falsified by the statement of the applicant herself recorded during the course of DRM inquiry. In her statement, she has stated that the deceased along with Page 10 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 her elder son, named, Rajendra Majhi had gone to Kantabanji for withdrawing money from the bank, but unfortunately, they both got separated in the market and later, the dead body of the deceased was found near Bangomunda level crossing gate, which was situated near Kantabanji market. She has further stated in her statement that her daughter was apatient of mental disorder. 8. RW-1 Shri Lalan Prasad Singh, SV/RPF, in his affidavit, has also stated the same facts and similar is the conclusion drawn in the DRM'’s report. 9. The evidence on record goes to show that the applicant has concocted a false story and has suppressed the true and correct facts. The deceased in this case was not travelling in the train. Precisely that is the reason that no journey ticket was recovered from her person.
Decision
10. In view of the above findings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding that the Railway Administration was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. No order as to costs was made. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent–Railway Administration. I have also meticulously perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal, as well as the impugned judgment. The central issues that arise for determination in the present appeal are: Page 11 of 17 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 death occurred in an “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? c. whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim? A. Statutory Framework: Section 124-A and the No-Fault Liability Regime (i) Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault liability principle. Once an untoward incident results in death or injury, the Railway Administration becomes strictly liable to pay statutory compensation unless it successfully brings the case within one of the narrow statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural causes. (ii) The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, particularly in Rina Devi (supra) has unequivocally clarified that: a. the claimant is entitled to a presumption of bona fide travel once foundational facts are shown b. loss of a ticket during an untoward incident is a common occurrence and does not defeat the claim; c. the burden shifts to the Railways to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that one of the statutory exceptions is attracted. Page 12 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (iii) It is thus incumbent upon this Court to assess whether the Railways have satisfactorily rebutted the initial presumption which arises in favour of the Appellant. B. Whether the Deceased Was a Bona Fide Passenger? i. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the sole ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. However, the law is now well-settled that non-recovery of a ticket cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Tickets frequently get detached, misplaced, or lost during accidents. ii. The Appellant led evidence through A.W.1 and, more importantly, through A.W.3 who is an eyewitness and who deposed that the deceased (a) had purchased a valid ticket from Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi, and (b) had accidentally fallen from the moving train. His testimony was not shaken in cross-examination. iii. This eyewitness account receives material corroboration from the inquest report, final report, and deposition of R.W. (SI/RPF) who, in cross-examination, candidly admitted that the investigative material indicated that the deceased had fallen from the train. iv. Further, the Respondent attempted to rely upon the statements of the loco-pilot and guard who reported no untoward incident. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that absence of Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) or lack of intimation to the crew does Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 not negate an untoward incident, as falls often go unnoticed in crowded passenger trains running on open sections. v. The Tribunal also relied heavily upon an alleged statement of the Appellant referring to mental disorder of the deceased and her moving through the market. This Court finds such reliance is completely misplaced. Statements given to police or during departmental inquiries are not substantive evidence unless duly proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. Moreover, the so- called inconsistencies do not outweigh (i) independent eyewitness account, (ii) police materials indicating fall from a train, and (iii) absence of any cogent rebuttal from the Railway Administration. vi. Thus, the presumption of bona fide travel arising under Rina Devi (supra) stands unrebutted, and the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is unsustainable. C. Whether the Death Constitutes an “Untoward Incident”? (i) The police inquest, post-mortem, and final report collectively indicate injuries consistent with a fall from a moving train. No material has been produced by the Railway Administration to show that the deceased committed suicide, was intoxicated, or engaged in any unlawful act. (ii) The Respondent’s attempt to label the incident as a run-over case is unsupported by any forensic or eyewitness evidence. The location of the body near the tracks is not, in itself, determinative Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 of a run-over; in fact, it is fully consistent with a fall from a moving train. (iii) There is similarly no evidence that the deceased’s mental condition, even assuming such allegation, had any causal nexus with the incident. The burden to show that the case falls within the statutory exception’s rests squarely on the Railway Administration. They have not discharged this burden (iv) In light of the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. D. Appreciation of the Tribunal’s Findings (i) The Tribunal appears to have adopted an approach contrary to the law laid down in Rina Devi(supra), by treating absence of the ticket as fatal to the claim and by placing undue emphasis upon uncorroborated statements and departmental inquiry materials. (ii) The Tribunal further erred in concluding that the Appellant concocted a false story. Not only does the record not support such a conclusion, but the very fact that the Respondent’s own witness (R.W./SI-RPF) admitted that the deceased fell from the train militates against such a finding. (iii) The Tribunal applied a standard of proof substantially heavier than what the statutory scheme warrants. The Railways Claims Tribunal Act incorporates a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to the victims. Page 15 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 The Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have adopted a hyper- technical approach. (iv) The overall weight of evidence supports the Appellant’s version rather than the Respondent’s. The Tribunal’s findings are thus perverse, unsupported by material evidence, and legally untenable. VI. CONCLUSION: 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court holds that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and her death occurred in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c). However, the Railway Administration failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 124-A. the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. 13. In view of the foregoing analysis and the conclusions reached herein, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.234 of 2016 cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the same is hereby set aside. 14. The death of the deceased Smt. Pada Majhi having been found to be the result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Appellant is legally entitled to statutory compensation. 15. As on the date of the incident i.e. 23.05.2016 the notified compensation for death under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents Page 16 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended by Notification dated 22.12.2016, stood revised from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. However, judicial pronouncements like Rathi Menon v. Union of India and UOI v. Radha Yadav clarify that the rate of compensation applicable is the one prevailing on the date of incident, not the date of decision. 16. Accordingly, as the incident occurred on 23.05.2016, prior to the enhancement effective from 01.01.2017, the applicable statutory compensation is Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only). 17. The claimant (s) may be allowed to withdraw 50% of the award amount within two months from today and rest of the amount be deposited in an interest-bearing account for minimum period of Three years. 18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th November, 2025/ Page 17 of 17