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 17:13:16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O. No.169 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Bhagaban Ghibila …. 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. S.S. Mohapatra, Sr. P.C. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-05.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the nil award dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A.-II(u) No. 300 of 2016, whereby the claim application seeking compensation of ₹4,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the Appellant in an alleged untoward incident was rejected. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The appellant’s case, in essence, is that on 07.07.2016, he boarded the Tapaswini Express at Puri Railway Station for travel to Sambalpur Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 Railway Station as a passenger. It is alleged that while the train was approaching Sambalpur Railway Station, the appellant accidentally fell from the running train near the home signal of Sambalpur Railway Station, as a result of which he sustained bodily injuries. 3. Immediately after the occurrence, the appellant was shifted for medical treatment to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur, and was thereafter referred to Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (VSSMCH), Burla, where he underwent further treatment. 4. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as A.W.-1 and produced medical records and treatment papers, which, according to him, corroborate his oral testimony, including his version in cross- examination, to the effect that he sustained injuries due to a fall from a running train on the date of the incident. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the appellant instituted O.A.-II(u) No. 300 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, invoking Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and sought statutory compensation for the injuries allegedly suffered in an “untoward incident”. 6. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish that the occurrence constituted an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and further held that the appellant had not proved his status as a bona fide Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. On such findings, the Tribunal held the respondent-Railways not liable for payment of compensation and accordingly dismissed the claim application. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i) The learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in its appreciation of the DRM’s report and the medical evidence on record, both of which unequivocally establish that the injuries sustained by the appellant were the direct consequence of a fall from a running train. The impugned finding to the contrary is thus perverse and unsustainable in law. ii) Though the appellant was subjected to cross-examination by the respondent-Railways, no material contradiction or admission could be elicited so as to discredit his version that he was travelling in the alleged train or to negate the factum of injuries sustained due to the fall. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the oral testimony of A.W.-1 remains unimpeached. iii) The appellant categorically deposed that he had purchased a valid journey ticket, and further explained in cross-examination that the same was lost during the accident. By such testimony, supported by surrounding circumstances, the appellant sufficiently discharged the initial burden of proof. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the respondent-Railways, the inevitable conclusion is that the Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 appellant was travelling as a bona fide passenger and sustained injuries in an untoward incident. iv) Travelling without a ticket constitutes an offence punishable under Section 138(4) of the Railways Act, 1989. In view thereof, a presumption of lawful travel necessarily operates in favour of a passenger, particularly when no prosecution or penal action is shown to have been initiated. Such presumption is further reinforced by Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless the contrary is affirmatively proved by the respondent. v) In terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts especially within the knowledge of a person must be proved by that person. Illustration (b) thereto places the burden upon a person charged with ticketless travel to prove possession of a ticket. In the present case, the appellant has offered a plausible and consistent explanation regarding loss of the ticket during the accident, whereas the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to establish ticketless travel. vi) The impugned decision is further vitiated by the absence of any evidence led by the respondent to suggest that the appellant attempted to alight from a moving train or acted in a manner falling within the statutory exceptions. In the absence of proof of any intentional, negligent, or prohibited act on the part of the appellant, the inference drawn by the Tribunal is legally untenable and contrary to settled principles governing claims under the Railways Act. Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 8. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) The Respondent submits that the above appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant is not a bona fide passenger as no journey ticket authority was recovered or produced by the injured appellant before the learned Tribunal. (ii) The DRM’s report reveals that the loco pilot and guard of the alleged train during inquiry submitted that after the alleged incident the appellant had stated that he jumped from the running train, as he missed to get down from his departed railway station causing injuries and he admitted the said facts before the IO. (iii) As per investigation report it is established that the cause of injury of the appellant was self-inflicted or suicidal in nature, therefore the alleged incident does not fall within the ambit of untoward incident as defined under section 123 (c)(2) of Railways Act, l989 and the appellant is not entitled to any compensation under section 124 of the Railways Act, l989. (iv) It is submitted that the Tribunal rightly held by its reasoned judgment and award dated 10.01.2020 in OA-II(u) No. 300 of 2016, the respondent was no liable to pay compensation to the appellant on account of death of the deceased and dismissed the claim application. Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 9. 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. (i) On the issues which were taken up together for discussion for sake of convenience, the Tribunal held that the testimony of AW-1 was unreliable and contrary to DRM report. (ii) The Tribunal found that no journey was recovered from the possession of the injured or from the site of incident. No plausible explanation has been put forth by the injured in his claim application in this context. (iii) The legal position of law has been made clear by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Singh Maurya v Union of India1, vide FA No.1023 of 2010, decided on 28.8.2010. (iv) The Investigating Officer recorded that the injured, after being over-carried due to sleep, attempted to alight from a running train, resulting in grievous injuries including amputation of his right leg below the knee. (v) From the above, it is proved on the file that this was a deliberate misadventure on the part of the injured, as he was taking risk to make a fast buck, despite knowing it well that it is dangerous to do so, as a result of his foolish and gross negligent act, he received injuries on his person. 1 (2010) AHC 11107 Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 (vi) The Tribunal concluded that attempting to deboard a moving train amounted to a deliberate and grossly negligent act, constituting a self-inflicted injury. (vii) Accordingly, the Tribunal, by its reasoned judgment and award dated 10.01.2020 in OA-II(u) No. 300 of 2016, dismissed the claim application and stated the respondent was no liable to pay compensation to the appellant on account of death of the deceased. V. REASONING OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: 10. The statutory framework governing the present appeal is contained in Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The scheme of the Act makes it abundantly clear that compensation liability in cases of “untoward incidents” is founded on strict liability, subject only to the limited and exhaustively enumerated exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 124A. Resultantly, once the claimant establishes that the injury occurred in the course of a fall from a train carrying passengers, the burden shifts squarely upon the Railways to demonstrate that the case falls within one of the statutory exclusions. 11. In the present case, the appellant has consistently asserted that he fell from a running train while travelling by the Tapaswini Express near the home signal of Sambalpur Railway Station. This version is not an afterthought, but is reflected in contemporaneous medical records prepared immediately after the incident. The injury pattern recorded at the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur, and later at VSSMCH, Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 Burla, unmistakably indicates trauma consistent with a fall from a moving train. The Tribunal has not pointed out any inherent inconsistency between the medical evidence and the appellant’s narration of events. 12. The Tribunal, however, chose to disbelieve the appellant’s testimony primarily on the basis of the DRM’s report and the alleged statement attributed to the appellant during investigation. This approach is legally flawed. A DRM’s report is an administrative document prepared on the basis of secondary inputs and is not substantive evidence unless duly proved and tested through examination of its author or the persons whose statements are relied upon therein. The Tribunal committed a serious error in elevating the DRM’s report to a position of determinative authority, while simultaneously discounting sworn testimony supported by medical evidence. 13. Equally unsustainable is the Tribunal’s rejection of the appellant’s status as a bona fide passenger solely on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered or produced. It is now well settled that non-recovery of a ticket, particularly in cases involving serious injuries, is not fatal to a claim under Section 124A. The appellant has specifically stated, including in cross-examination, that he had purchased a valid journey ticket and that the same was lost during the accident. Such an explanation is neither implausible nor uncommon in cases of accidental falls from trains. Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 14. Once such an explanation is offered, the initial burden resting on the claimant stands discharged. At that stage, the evidentiary onus shifts to the Railways to prove ticketless travel by producing affirmative material, such as contemporaneous records, prosecution under Section 138 of the Railways Act, or examination of relevant officials. In the present case, the respondent-Railways have led no such evidence. The Tribunal’s insistence on strict proof of ticket possession by an injured passenger amounts to imposing a standard of proof alien to proceedings under a beneficial legislation. 15. The Tribunal further erred in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant on the premise that he attempted to alight from a moving train, thereby branding the act as a “deliberate misadventure” and a “self-inflicted injury”. The proviso to Section 124A makes a clear distinction between intentional self-inflicted injury and mere negligence or imprudence. An act qualifies as “self-inflicted” only when there is a deliberate intention to cause harm to oneself. Attempting to deboard a train, even if negligent or ill-advised, does not ipso facto satisfy this stringent threshold. 16. The Tribunal’s finding that the appellant acted with intent or engaged in reckless conduct “to make a fast buck” is wholly speculative and unsupported by legally admissible evidence. No witness has been examined to substantiate this allegation, nor is there any contemporaneous material indicating suicidal intent or deliberate self- Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 harm. Findings based on conjecture, moral overtones, or subjective assumptions cannot form the basis for denying statutory compensation. 17. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the alleged statement of the appellant before the Investigating Officer is also problematic. Such a statement, even if assumed to be accepted , was neither proved in accordance with law nor tested through cross-examination. Moreover, statements made in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic accident cannot be mechanically relied upon to attribute intention or culpability, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence. 18. The Tribunal further failed to appreciate that Section 124A does not require the claimant to prove absence of negligence. The statutory intent is to compensate victims of railway accidents on a no-fault basis, except where the Railways conclusively establish the applicability of one of the enumerated exceptions. By importing notions of contributory negligence and reckless conduct into the analysis, the Tribunal travelled beyond the permissible contours of the statute. 19. On an overall assessment of the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that he sustained injuries as a result of a fall from a running train while travelling as a passenger. The respondent-Railways have failed to discharge the burden of proving either ticketless travel or the existence of a statutory exception under the proviso to Section 124A. 20. The impugned judgment thus suffers from errors of law, misappreciation of evidence, and an incorrect application of the Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 statutory scheme governing railway accident compensation. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are not merely erroneous, but are contrary to the settled principles governing claims under the Railways Act, 1989, warranting interference in appeal. VI. CONCLUSION: 21. In view of the foregoing analysis and reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and award dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A.- II(u) No. 300 of 2016 are hereby set aside. 22. This Court holds that the appellant sustained injuries in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, while travelling as a bona fide passenger in a train carrying passengers, and that the case does not fall within any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under the proviso to Section 124A of the said Act. 23. Consequently, the appellant is held entitled to statutory compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The respondent– Railways are accordingly directed to pay a sum of ₹4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the appellant as compensation. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment. 24. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the event of failure to comply within the stipulated period, Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 the amount shall thereafter carry interest at the enhanced rate of 9% per annum till realization. 25. It is further directed that 50 percent of the awarded amount shall be released in favour of the claimant within the aforesaid period and the rest of the amount be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years.
Decision
26. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec., 2025 Page 12 of 12