Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O. No.168 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Sasmita Aich & 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. A.K. Mohanty, CGC. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-12.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 299 of 2016, whereby the claim application seeking statutory compensation for the death of Sangram Kumar Swain was dismissed by recording a nil award. The appellants, being the widow and mother of the deceased, contend that the Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts in rejecting their claim. Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: I. 2. The present appeal arises out of O.A. No. 299/2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, wherein the claimants sought compensation of ₹4,00,000/- for the death of Sangram Kumar Swain in an alleged untoward incident. 3. On 19.09.2016, the deceased was stated to be travelling from Bhubaneswar to Bhadrak by Train No. 12074 Janashatabdi Express on the strength of a valid journey ticket. During the journey, he allegedly accidentally fell down between KED and Baudpur railway stations, sustained fatal injuries, and died on the spot. 4. The incident was reported to the GRPS, Bhadrak, which registered UD Case No. 42/2016. Inquest proceedings were conducted, and the final police report concluded that the death was due to accidental fall from the running train, with no suspicion of foul play. The post-mortem examination opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and consistent with railway run-over. 5. The claimants, being the widow and mother of the deceased, filed the claim application before the Tribunal, relying on the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and oral evidence of A.W.1 (widow) and A.W.2 (alleged eyewitness to ticket purchase). They contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident was an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 6. The Respondent–Railways contested the claim, denying bona fide passenger status on the ground that no journey ticket or travel authority was recovered from the deceased. It was further contended that the incident was due to the deceased’s own criminal acts amounting to self-inflicted injury, falling within exception (b) to Section 124-A. Reliance was placed on the DRM’s investigation report and the guard’s rough journal, which showed that the train passed Baudpur at 08.08 hours without incident, whereas the body was noticed at 07.30 hours. 7. The learned Tribunal, by judgment dated 08.01.2020, dismissed the claim. It held that A.W.2 was a planted witness, that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, and that the incident did not qualify as an untoward incident under the Railways Act. 8. Aggrieved by the nil award, the claimants filed the present appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, assailing the Tribunal’s findings and seeking statutory compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: II. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of their contentions: (i) The learned Tribunal has erred in law and fact in dismissing the claim application by disbelieving the testimony of A.W.2 without assigning cogent reasons. A.W.2 categorically deposed that he accompanied the deceased to Bhubaneswar Railway Station, saw Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 him purchase a valid journey ticket to Bhadrak, and board the Janashatabdi Express. His testimony was not shaken in cross-examination, and no material was elicited to disprove the deceased’s travel. (ii) In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the Railways, the deceased must be held to have been a bona fide passenger. The statutory burden under Section 124-A of the Railways Act shifts to the Railway Administration once the claimants discharge their initial burden. The Railways failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish ticketless travel or applicability of statutory exceptions. (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024) has held that even if the journey ticket is not recovered from the deceased, compensation cannot be denied. It is not necessary to produce a ticket when relevant facts corroborate the incident. Once the claimant deposes that the deceased was travelling in the train and the Railways fail to rebut, the conclusion must be that he was a bona fide passenger. (iv) The inquest report, final police report, and post-mortem examination conclusively establish that the death was due to accidental fall from a running train. These documents uniformly negate any suspicion of foul play. In the absence of evidence from the Railways to prove exceptions under Section 124-A, the Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 incident must be construed as an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2). (v) The learned Tribunal failed to consider these settled legal principles and instead proceeded on conjectures, thereby rendering the impugned nil award unsustainable. The Tribunal’s finding that A.W.2 was a planted witness and that the deceased was not travelling in the train is perverse, contrary to record, and liable to be set aside. (vi) In view of the foregoing, the Appellants submit that the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed in OA-299/2016 deserves to be quashed. The claimants, being the widow and mother of the deceased, are entitled to statutory compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. (vii) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal, set aside the impugned nil award dated 08.01.2020, and direct the Respondent–Railways to pay compensation to the Appellants in accordance with law. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/RAILWAYS 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of the impugned judgment: (i) The present appeal is devoid of merit. The learned Tribunal, by judgment dated 08.01.2020 in O.A. No. 299/2016, rightly dismissed the claim application, having found that the deceased was not Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. (ii) The Tribunal correctly disbelieved the testimony of A.W.2, who was introduced only during the course of evidence. His deposition was inconsistent and unreliable, and he was rightly held to be a planted witness. (iii) The guard’s rough journal and statement in the DRM’s inquiry established that Train No. 12074 Janashatabdi Express passed Baudpur station at 08.08 hours without incident. In contrast, the dead body was noticed by the railway keyman at 07.30 hours. This discrepancy conclusively disproves the claim that the deceased was travelling in the said train. (iv) The plea that the journey ticket was lost in the incident is not believable, as the clothes of the deceased were intact. No ticket or travel authority was recovered during inquest. In absence of such evidence, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. (v) The burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish bona fide passenger status, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1. Once this burden is not discharged, the claim must fail. In the present case, the appellants failed to provide conclusive evidence, and the Tribunal rightly held against them. 1 (2018 (1) SCC 174 Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 (vi) The DRM’s investigation report prepared under the Railways (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, further corroborated that the deceased was not a passenger of the train and that the death did not arise from an untoward incident. (vii) Mere recovery of a dead body near railway tracks does not ipso facto establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or a victim of an untoward incident. The evidence suggested that the deceased met his death in another manner, possibly due to self-negligence, and the claim was fabricated to obtain compensation. (viii) The Tribunal’s findings are well reasoned, based on documentary and oral evidence, and consistent with settled law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. (ix) In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present appeal, affirm the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 299/2016, and grant such further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL 11. All the issues being inter-connected were taken up together for discussion and decision. Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 12. To prove their case, the applicants examined A.W.1, the widow of the deceased, who in her affidavit merely reiterated the averments made in the claim application. She was duly cross-examined by the respondent-Railway. A.W.2, Dinabandhu Jena, in his affidavit stated that he had accompanied the deceased to Bhubaneswar Railway Station, seen him purchase a ticket to Bhadrak, and board the Janshatabdi Express train. He further deposed that after the train departed, he returned home and later received information about the death of the deceased. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination. 13. The inquest proceedings were initiated by the Government Railway Police on receipt of a memo dated 19.09.2016 from the Station Superintendent, intimating about a dead body lying on the track between (KED) and Baudpur. The memo was based on information given by the railway keyman and was received by the GRP authorities at 11.35 hours. 14. The journey ticket was not produced in evidence and was alleged to have been lost in the incident. The applicants sought to rely on the testimony of A.W.2 to establish bona fide passenger status. However, upon scrutiny, the Tribunal found that the testimony of A.W.2 did not inspire confidence and was not worthy of reliance. There was no mention in the claim application or in the affidavit of A.W.1 that A.W.2 had accompanied the deceased to the station. The Tribunal held that A.W.2 was introduced only during the course of evidence and was a planted witness. Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 15. The evidence of A.W.2 and the applicants’ case that the deceased was travelling by Janshatabdi Express on 19.09.2016 stood falsified by the statement of the train guard recorded during the DRM’s inquiry. The guard categorically stated that his train had passed Baudpur station at 08.08 hours and no such incident had occurred. His rough journal corroborated this timing. In contrast, the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the railway keyman at 07.30 hours, which itself disproved the claim that the deceased was travelling in the Janshatabdi Express. 16. The post-mortem examination conducted at 16.30 hours on 19.09.2016 opined that the duration of death was between 24 to 48 hours prior to the examination. This meant that the death had occurred much earlier than the time when the body was noticed by the keyman at 07.30 hours on 19.09.2016. 17. The applicants’ plea that the ticket was lost in the incident was also rejected. The Tribunal noted that the clothes of the deceased were intact, and it was not a case of amputation or mutilation where the ticket could have been lost. 18. From the overwhelming evidence on record, particularly the statutory inquiry, the guard’s journal, and the post-mortem report, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was neither travelling in the alleged train on 19.09.2016 nor was he a sufferer of any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. A.W.2 was found to be a planted witness. Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 19. Accordingly, all the issues were decided against the applicants and in favour of the respondent-Railway. The claim application was dismissed,
Decision
with no order as to costs. V. JUDGMENT AND REASONING: 20. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 299 of 2016, whereby the claim application seeking statutory compensation for the death of Sangram Kumar Swain was dismissed by recording a nil award. The appellants, being the widow and mother of the deceased, contend that the Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts in rejecting their claim. 21. The scope of interference by this Court in an appeal against an order of the Tribunal is well settled. This Court does not sit as a court of first instance to reappreciate evidence unless the findings recorded by the Tribunal are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on a manifest misapplication of settled legal principles. If the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible one on the evidence available on record, mere possibility of another view does not justify appellate interference. 22. The core issues that arise for consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 12074 Janashatabdi Express on 19.09.2016 and whether his death was the result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124- Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 A of the Railways Act, 1989. These two issues are closely interlinked and therefore merit conjoint consideration. 23. It is an admitted position that no journey ticket or travel authority was recovered from the body of the deceased during the inquest proceedings. The claimants sought to establish the bona fide passenger status of the deceased primarily through the oral testimony of A.W.2, who claimed that he had accompanied the deceased to Bhubaneswar Railway Station, witnessed the purchase of a ticket to Bhadrak, and saw him board the Janashatabdi Express. 24. The Tribunal, however, after careful scrutiny, disbelieved the testimony of A.W.2. A significant circumstance noted by the Tribunal was that neither the claim application nor the affidavit evidence of A.W.1 contained any reference to A.W.2 accompanying the deceased to the railway station. The appearance of A.W.2 for the first time during the course of evidence, without any foundational pleading, was held to be a material omission affecting the credibility of the claimants’ case. This Court finds no perversity in such reasoning, as even in summary proceedings the Tribunal is entitled to examine whether the testimony of a witness inspires confidence and whether his presence appears natural and probable. 25. Apart from the oral evidence, the Tribunal relied upon documentary material forming part of the statutory investigation. The guard’s statement and the rough journal, recorded during the DRM’s inquiry, clearly established that Train No. 12074 Janashatabdi Express passed Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 Baudpur station at 08.08 hours without any untoward occurrence. In contrast, the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the railway keyman at 07.30 hours. This discrepancy in timing is not trivial but goes to the very root of the claim. If the body was noticed at 07.30 hours, the version that the deceased fell from a train which passed the station at 08.08 hours becomes inherently improbable. The Tribunal was therefore justified in holding that the deceased could not have been travelling in the said train at the relevant time. 26. The Tribunal also took note of the post-mortem report, which opined that the duration of death was between 24 to 48 hours prior to the examination conducted at 16.30 hours on 19.09.2016. This medical opinion further weakened the appellants’ version, as it indicated that the death had occurred much earlier than the time at which the body was allegedly noticed on the track on the morning of 19.09.2016. The medical evidence thus lent corroboration to the documentary evidence produced by the Railways and reinforced the conclusion that the deceased was not a passenger of the Janashatabdi Express on the said date. 27. The plea of the appellants that the journey ticket was lost during the incident was also considered and rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the clothes of the deceased were intact and that it was not a case involving mutilation or amputation where loss of ticket could reasonably be presumed. In the absence of any corroborative material, the explanation offered by the appellants was found to be speculative Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 and unconvincing. This Court finds no infirmity in such appreciation of evidence. 28. While it is true that in appropriate cases the absence of a recovered ticket is not, by itself, fatal to a claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, such presumption arises only when the foundational facts indicating travel by train are otherwise established. In the present case, the cumulative effect of the timing discrepancy, the statutory inquiry, the guard’s journal, and the medical evidence clearly dislodges the appellants’ version and rebuts any presumption of bona fide travel. Consequently, the burden never shifted to the Railways to establish the applicability of statutory exceptions. 29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in a proper and judicious manner and has recorded findings which are supported by material on record. The conclusion that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an untoward incident within the meaning of the Railways Act cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment. 30. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 299 of 2016 is hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:15 VI. CONCLUSION: 31. In view of the foregoing analysis and reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 299 of 2016, dismissing the claim application and awarding nil compensation, is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the appellants shall not be entitled to any statutory compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. 32. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec., 2025 Page 14 of 14