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.176 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Shivram Pradhan & Ors. …. 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. Smt. Nibedita Sahoo, CGC. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-15.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellantS calling in question the nil award dated 23.01.2020 rendered by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for short, “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 95 of 2017, whereby the claim petition of the Respondents– claimants was allowed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 22.10.2015, while the deceased was travelling from Navsari to Surat by in a local train, he is stated to have accidentally Page 1 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 fallen from the running train in between Udhna and Bhestan Railway station Yard at KM No.258/24-26, sustained injuries, and died at the spot. Consequent upon the said occurrence, the RPS/Udhna registered A.D. Case No.283/2015 and took up investigation in the matter. (ii) Subsequently, the appellants instituted a claim application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, registered as O.A. No. 95 of 2017, seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased had occurred as a consequence of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. (iii) The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, by its judgment and award dated 23.01.2020, stated that the deceased was not a passenger in a train carrying passengers and his death was not caused in an untoward incident as defined U/s 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act,1989 and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants on account of death of the deceased. (iv) Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in O.A. No. 95 of 2017, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court, calling in question the legality, propriety, and correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 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 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The learned Tribunal did not take into consideration legal principles while passing the impugned award by the learned Tribunal, the same is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the claimants are entitled to get compensation as per the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. A.W.3 testified that after buying tickets, he and the deceased boarded an overcrowded local train. As A.W.3 entered the compartment, the deceased stood at the doorway and was pushed out, falling from the moving train between Udhana and Bhestan and dying instantly. (ii) The learned Tribunal overlooked that there has been an absence of rebuttal evidence from the Respondents, that would make it clear that the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger in the alleged train and he sustained injuries in the untoward incident and died on the spot. (iii) The learned Tribunal has also misapplied the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India1 which holds that non-recovery of a ticket does not bar compensation and that unrebutted claimant testimony is sufficient to establish bona fide passenger status.
Decision
1 disposed of on 09.08.2024 in Civil Appeal No.8605 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No.32962 of 2018 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 (iv) The inquest and final reports establish the incident as an untoward incident. As the Railways led no contrary evidence or pleaded any exception under Section 124A, the Tribunal ignored settled law, rendering the nil award unsustainable. In such view of the matter, he contended that the prayer of the Appellants may be allowed. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) The Respondents–claimants examined A.W. 1, Rasmita Pradhan who is the wife of the deceased and A.W. 2, Shivram Pradhan who is the father of the deceased, and concluded that they are not the eye witness to the incident. The A.W. 3, Jugal Sahu who is an unknown person, claimed through affidavit that he travelled along with the deceased in a local train after purchasing journey ticket and has seen the incident on 22.10.2015 and also intimated the incident to father of the deceased. (ii) It is submitted that A.W.3 in his cross examination failed to produce any journey ticket, and he did not inform the incident at any Railway Station, GRPS or RPF. He has also not pulled the ACP. He was also not present at the time of inquest. During Cross-examination, he could not recall the name and number of the train in which they were travelling. He could not say his own telephone number or of the father of deceased. 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) The spot Panchanama reveals that the deceased accidently came to sweep with any DN time and got serious injuries and therefore died. While searching, no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased. (iv) In view of the non-recovery of ticket and unreliable oral evidence on record, and having regard to the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on similar facts, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the death of the deceased did not occur as a result of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by its reasoned judgment and award dated 23.01.2020 in O.A. No. 95 of 2017, dismissed the claim application and stated the respondent was no liable to pay compensation to the appellant on account of death of the deceased. 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. (i) On the issues which were taken up together for discussion for sake of convenience, the Tribunal held that A.W.1 & A.W.2 are not the eye witness to the incident. A.W.3, Jugala Sahu claims in his affidavit in evidence to have travelled along with the deceased in a local train after purchasing journey ticket and has 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 seen the incident on 22.10.2015 and also intimated the incident to father of the deceased. Besides, the applicants have relied upon the documents prepared during investigation and AD Case No.283/2015 to establish that the death of deceased was caused in an untoward incident. (ii) A.W.3 Jugal Sahu in his cross-examination has stated that he cannot produce any ticket. He has not informed the incident at any Railway Station, GRPS or RPF. He had not pulled the ACP. He was not present at the time of inquest. The place of their residence is at a distance of 10 minutes train travel from the place of incident. He couldn’t tell the name and number of the train in which they were travelling. He also couldn’t recall his own telephone number or of the father of deceased. (iii) The "Verdhi" filed in this case reveals that on 22.10.2015 at about 22.05 hrs the SM/Udhna Railway Station gave a written Memo stating that one person namely Suraj informed that one person was cut by Train between Bhestan-Udhna Railway Station at KM No.258/24-26 and was found dead. The spot Panchanama reveals that the deceased accidentally came to sweep with any DN train and got serious injuries and therefore died which was also mentioned in the inquest panchanama and the final report. (iv) The respondent filed the DRM report stating that the deceased while crossing the railway track was dashed with an unknown 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 train and died on spot. R.W.1 in his affidavit in evidence has stated that there was spot-panchanama and inquest panchanama. In his cross-examination R.W.1 has stated that the accident place is nearer to the Levels Crossing. (v) The place of incident is near to the place of residence of the deceased as seen from the inquest panchanama. The co- passengers couldn’t produce any journey ticket before the Enquiry Officer to prove that they have travelled with the deceased on 22.10.2015. The testimony of A.W.3 was found to be unreliable. A.W.3 neither produced any document showing that he was staying at Bhestan, Surat on 22.10.2015 nor any authority to prove that he was travelling with the deceased. (vi) The inquest Panchanama reveals that Shivram S/o Birbar Pradhan was looking for the dead body of deceased. In the cross-examination A.W.2 has stated that he has never visited Bheston, Surat and Navasari. (vii) The Tribunal found no evidence to discard the inquest panchanama and final report prepared during investigation of case. Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989 states that the entries made in the records or other documents of a railway administration shall be admitted in evidence in all proceedings. (viii) The Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a passenger in a train carrying passengers and his death was not caused in an untoward incident as defined U/s 123(c) (2) of the Railways 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 Act,1989 and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants on account of death of the deceased. IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. The present appeal is directed against the nil award dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 95 of 2017, whereby the claim application seeking statutory compensation for the death of the deceased was dismissed on the twin grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did not occur in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 7. At the outset, it must be reiterated that the liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is one of strict liability. Once it is established that the death occurred due to an untoward incident involving a passenger, the Railway Administration is statutorily bound to pay compensation, unless it successfully proves that the case falls within one of the narrowly carved exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A. Considerations of negligence or contributory negligence are wholly irrelevant in such proceedings 8. The Tribunal, however, approached the case by placing an unduly onerous burden on the claimants, insisting upon direct ocular evidence of the fall and production of the journey ticket. Such an approach runs contrary to the settled jurisprudence governing claims under the Railways Act, which recognises that in cases of accidental 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 falls from running trains, recovery of a ticket or presence of eye- witnesses is often improbable. 9. The evidentiary record demonstrates that an A.D. Case No. 283 of 2015 was registered immediately after the incident. The inquest report, spot panchanama, and final report consistently record that the deceased was found dead on the railway track between Udhna and Bhestan stations and that the death was caused due to injuries sustained in a railway incident. These contemporaneous public documents lend substantial corroboration to the appellants’ case and could not have been lightly discarded. 10. The Tribunal rejected the testimony of A.W.3 primarily on the ground that he could not produce his journey ticket, did not pull the alarm chain, and could not recollect certain peripheral details such as the train number or telephone numbers. In the opinion of this Court, these factors, taken individually or cumulatively, do not strike at the root of his testimony. Minor lapses in memory or conduct in the aftermath of a traumatic incident are natural and do not necessarily render a witness unreliable, particularly in summary proceedings under a beneficial statute. 11. The Tribunal also attached decisive importance to the non-recovery of the journey ticket from the body of the deceased. It is now well settled that non-recovery of a ticket is not fatal to a claim under Section 124-A. Once the claimants adduce plausible oral and circumstantial evidence of travel, a presumption of bona fide 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 passenger status arises, and the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the same by cogent evidence. In the present case, no such rebuttal evidence was led. 12. Reliance placed by the Ld. Tribunal on the DRM report and the statement of R.W.1 that the deceased might have been hit by an “unknown train” while crossing the track is speculative in nature. Such internal inquiry reports constitute, at best, negative evidence and cannot override positive circumstantial and medical evidence pointing towards an accidental fall from a train. Moreover, the Railways did not plead or establish any of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A. 13. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the deceased was run over by a train while trespassing on the track is not supported by any definitive medical or forensic material. The post-mortem and inquest reports do not conclusively establish a run-over scenario so as to bring the case within the exceptions to Section 124-A. The Tribunal’s inference in this regard is based more on conjecture than on legally admissible proof. 14. Equally untenable is the dismissal of the claim on the ground of alleged defects relating to legal heirs. Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are not governed by strict technicalities of civil procedure. Once a dependent approaches the Tribunal, questions of apportionment or representation of other dependants can always be 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 addressed at the stage of disbursement; they do not defeat the substantive entitlement to compensation. 15. The cumulative effect of the oral evidence of A.W.3, the contemporaneous police and medical records, and the absence of any credible rebuttal from the Railways clearly establishes that the deceased was travelling by a passenger train and that his death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train. The incident, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. 16. The Ld. Tribunal, by misplacing the burden of proof, over- emphasising technical inconsistencies, and relying on speculative inquiry reports, committed errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The impugned nil award, therefore, cannot be sustained. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are legally unsustainable and call for interference in appeal. V. CONCLUSIONS: 18. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The nil award dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 95 of 2017 is hereby set aside. 19. It is held that the death of the deceased occurred due to an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 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 Consequently, the Appellants–claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 20. The Union of India (Railways) is directed to pay the statutory compensation as prescribed under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as applicable on the date of the accident, to the Appellants. 21. The compensation amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the Appellants in accordance with law. 22. In the event of failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period till actual payment. 23. The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the Appellants 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. 24. 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