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. 235 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987) Mohan Lal Sharma and Anr. …. Appellant (s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Dhananjay Mund, Adv. Mr. Millon Kumar, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-16.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this appeal, the Appellants seek a direction from this Court to set aside the impugned nil award dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A-II/321/2025 and to grant statutory compensation for the death of the deceased caused in an untoward railway incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. I. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 (i) On 28.11.2015, the deceased, Ankit Sharma, was travelling from Kantabanji to Balangir by Train No. 18426, Durg-Puri Express. During the course of the journey, the deceased is alleged to have fallen from the running train and sustained fatal injuries, resulting in his death at the spot. (ii) The appellants are the parents of Late Ankit Sharma. They filed an application being OA-II/321/2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, on account of the death of their son in a railway incident. The claimants asserted that the deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket at the relevant time. (iii) Upon issuance of notice, the respondent–Railway Administration entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed a written statement. The respondent denied the averments made in the claim application, disputed its liability to pay compensation, and prayed for dismissal of the claim. (iv) After considering the pleadings, evidence, and materials on record, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, by judgment dated 06.01.2020 dismissed the claim application in OA-II/321/2015. (v) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment and seeking appropriate reliefs. Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 II. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT: (i) The Railway Claims Tribunal examined the pleadings, oral evidence, documentary materials, and the DRM inquiry report while adjudicating Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 together, treating them as interlinked. The Tribunal first considered the affidavits of A.W.1, the father of the deceased, and A.W.2, the maternal uncle, both of whom asserted that the deceased had travelled by Train No. 18426, Durg-Puri Express, after purchasing a valid journey ticket and had died due to an accidental fall from the train. The Tribunal noted that both witnesses were examined and cross-examined, and their statements were placed on record in support of the claim that the death resulted from an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, 1989. (ii) However, the Tribunal attached significant weight to the statement of A.W.1 recorded earlier during the DRM inquiry. It observed that this statement differed materially from the version subsequently put forward in the affidavits of A.W.1 and A.W.2 before the Tribunal, particularly with respect to the sequence of events preceding the journey and the deceased’s movements on the date of the incident. The Tribunal found these inconsistencies to be substantial and held that such contradictions cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim and on the factum of travel of the deceased as a passenger in the alleged train. (iii) The Tribunal further relied upon the inquest report and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the dead body. It noted that the body of the deceased was found lying in the middle of the railway Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 track and that no journey ticket was recovered during the inquest proceedings. On this basis, the Tribunal reasoned that, in cases of accidental fall from a train, the body would ordinarily be found along the side of the track rather than beneath or on the track itself. From this circumstance, read along with the absence of a recovered ticket, the Tribunal inferred that the death was more consistent with a case of run-over while crossing the railway track rather than an accidental fall from a running train. (iv) The Tribunal also held that the testimony of A.W.2 could not be safely relied upon, as he was a close relative of the deceased and therefore an interested witness. Taking the cumulative effect of the alleged contradictions in evidence, the location of the body, the absence of a ticket, and the findings recorded in the DRM inquiry report, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death was the result of an untoward incident under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Consequently, Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were decided against the applicants, and in light of those findings, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate Issues Nos. 4 and 5, ultimately dismissing the claim application. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 (i) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, suffers from serious errors of law and fact and is
Legal Reasoning
“We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 15. The claimant must first establish on a balance of probabilities that the victim was a bona fide passenger (i.e. travelling with a valid ticket or authority) and that the injury or death was caused by an untoward incident. There was some divergence in judicial opinions on how strictly this initial burden lies on the claimant. he Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) resolved this by holding that while the mere presence of a body on railway premises is not by itself conclusive proof of bona fide travel, the mere absence of a ticket on the body will not negate a compensation claim if other evidence suggests that the person had indeed been travelling. 16. The initial onus can be discharged by the claimant through credible evidence such as eyewitness testimony or affidavits of relevant facts, and once that is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim or to prove that an exception applies. In Rina Devi, it was succinctly held that mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The claimant’s version, if supported by attending circumstances, gives rise to a presumption in favour of bona fide travel, which the Railways must then disprove by concrete evidence. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “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 Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 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 in this regard will stand explained legal position accordingly.” 17. The appellant’s case is that, on 28.11.2015, their son, Late Ankit Sharma, was travelling from Kantabanji to Balangir by Train No. 18426, Durg-Puri Express where he fell from the running train and sustained fatal injuries, resulting in his death at the spot. To support this version, the appellant relies on the testimony of the deceased’s Father and Maternal Uncle examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 respectively. A.W.2 deposed that on 28.11.2015 he accompanied the deceased to Kantabanjhi station, saw him purchase a journey ticket and a platform ticket for A.W.2, and watched him board Train No. 18426 (Durg-Puri Express) before returning home after the train departed. 18. The appellant also produced records from Bolangir GRPS U.D. Case No. 38/2015, including the inquest report, post mortem report, and final report, wherein the police, upon investigation, recorded the death as a case of accidental fall from a train. It is undisputed that the body was found on the railway track at the stated location in the early hours of 28.11.2015 by the trackman, though no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. The police investigation did not reveal any prior enmity, foul play, or any non railway cause for the death. Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 19. The Claims Tribunal was not satisfied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the death resulted from an accidental fall. It relied mainly on two circumstances. First, it found A.W.2’s evidence unreliable. Second, it treated the condition of the body and the absence of ticket as suggesting an alternative possibility, including that the deceased may have been run over on the tracks without travelling in the train. These aspects have been reconsidered in light of the governing principles. 20. In the cross examination, a discrepancy emerged between the deposition of A.W.1 before the Tribunal and his earlier statement to the DRM. In the latter, the Tribunal observed that A.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident and that his knowledge was derived from what he claimed to have been told by others. In the absence of recovery of a journey ticket during the inquest and in view of the conflicting narratives put forth by A.W.1 at different stages, the Tribunal held that his testimony did not inspire confidence. The Tribunal noted that A.W.2, being the maternal uncle of the deceased, is an interested witness and his testimony must be tested with care. He stated that he escorted the deceased to the station and saw him board the train with a purchased ticket. This Court finds that A.W.1 and A.W.2’s versions are not fully consistent on that limited aspect. However, they have remained consistent on the central narrative that the deceased intended to travel by the Durg-Puri Express. and that a ticket was procured for that journey. There is no material suggesting any independent reason for Page 12 of 14 21. 22. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 the deceased to be on the tracks otherwise. The body was found along the same route near an intermediate station in the early hours, which is broadly consistent with the travel version. 23. In a claim under Section 124A, the Court must avoid an unduly technical approach that defeats the object of beneficial legislation. If the claimant’s version is reasonably probable and is not displaced by reliable contrary evidence, it should not be rejected merely due to minor inconsistencies. 24. The respondents suggested that the case may fall within the proviso to Section 124A, such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, or trespass. No evidence was led to support any such plea. There is nothing on record to indicate suicidal intent, deliberate self-harm, or any criminal act. The theory that the deceased was merely on the track at night and was run over is speculative and unsupported by any material. Once the claimant establishes a prima facie case of accidental falling of a passenger, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove that an exception applies. That burden has not been discharged. A bare suggestion of possibilities cannot defeat a claim under Section 124A. VI. CONCLUSION: 25. For these reasons, the impugned award is set aside and the appeal is allowed. This Court holds that the death occurred due to an untoward incident while the deceased was a passenger on the train in question. The appellant is entitled to statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended. The respondents shall pay the said amount with interest at 6% per annum from 28.11.2015 till payment, within three months from today. 26. 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. 27. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec., 2025 Page 14 of 14
Arguments
liable to be set aside. It was contended that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on conjectures and surmises without properly appreciating the materials available on record. According to the appellants, cogent and convincing oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced to establish that the deceased died as a result of an accidental fall from a running train, whereas no rebuttal evidence was led by the respondent to disprove the said case. (ii) It was further submitted that the appellants had exhibited and proved contemporaneous police documents, including the inquest report, dead body challan, and statements of witnesses recorded soon after the incident, which consistently indicated that the cause of death was an accidental fall from the train. The Tribunal, however, gave undue reliance to the DRM report, which was prepared much after the occurrence and whose author was not examined, while disregarding the other evidence on record. The appellants argued that such an approach resulted in a perverse finding. (iii) Learned counsel also submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal failed to apply the settled principles governing claims under the Railways Act, 1989, which is a piece of benevolent legislation. It was contended that in cases where two views are possible, the Tribunal ought to have adopted an interpretation in favour of the victim, applying the doctrine of strict liability and the principle underlying res Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 ipsa loquitur. It was further argued that the absence of recovery of a ticket from the deceased cannot, by itself, disentitle the claimants from compensation, particularly in cases where the passenger dies on the spot. (iv) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi,1 to submit that mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger. It was also argued that the burden to establish any exception to statutory liability, such as death due to a criminal act, negligence, intoxication, or self-inflicted injury, lies on the Railway Administration, and no such plea or proof was placed on record by the respondent. (v) On these grounds, it was submitted that the dismissal of the claim application was illegal and contrary to the settled position of law. The appellants, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and for grant of appropriate compensation along with interest in accordance with law. IV. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Learned counsel for the respondent–Railway Administration supported the impugned judgment and contended that the Railway Claims Tribunal had correctly appreciated both the facts and the law while dismissing the claim application. It was submitted that the applicants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred due to 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 5. The respondent argued that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during the inquest proceedings, which cast serious doubt on the claim that he was travelling by Train No. 18426, Durg-Puri Express. It was further submitted that the explanation offered by the applicants regarding loss of the ticket and travelling bag was not supported by any independent or contemporaneous evidence and could not be accepted as sufficient proof of lawful travel. 6. Learned counsel drew the Court’s attention to the material inconsistencies between the statement of A.W.1 recorded during the DRM inquiry and the affidavits subsequently filed by A.W.1 and A.W.2 before the Tribunal. According to the respondent, these contradictions went to the root of the matter and rendered the appellants’ version unreliable, thereby justifying the Tribunal’s conclusion that the factum of travel itself was doubtful. 7. It was further contended that the location and condition of the dead body, which was found lying in the middle of the railway track, did not support the theory of an accidental fall from a running train. The respondent submitted that, in such cases, the body is ordinarily found on the side of the track rather than on the track itself, and the surrounding circumstances were more indicative of a case of run-over while crossing the railway line. 8. The respondent also relied upon the DRM inquiry report, which suggested that the death appeared to have occurred due to being hit by Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 a running train. It was argued that the Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on the said report in the absence of credible and consistent evidence to the contrary. The respondent further submitted that the Tribunal had rightly treated the testimony of A.W.2 with caution, as he was a close relative and an interested witness. 9. On these grounds, it was contended that the applicants had suppressed the true genesis of the incident and failed to establish the essential ingredients for grant of compensation under the Railways Act. The respondent, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal and for affirmance of the impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. 11. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The appellant (parents of the deceased) challenges the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award which denied compensation for the death of her son. The Tribunal’s findings were that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the death was not shown to result from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989. The task before this Court is to re-appreciate the evidence and legal standards governing such claims to determine whether the appellant is entitled to compensation. 12. Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation for death or injury caused to a passenger by an “untoward incident”, which includes an Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 accidental fall from a train (Section 123(c)(2)). This liability is based on a no-fault principle and the negligence of the victim is immaterial. 13. The only defences available to the Railways are the narrow exceptions listed in the proviso to Section 124-A such as self-inflicted injury, suicide or criminal trespass by the victim. Unless the Railways establish that the case falls within those exceptions, compensation must be paid for an untoward incident causing a passenger’s death or injury. In other words, if a bona fide passenger suffers a mishap like an accidental fall from a train, the Railways are liable to compensate, and contributory negligence (for instance, carelessness in boarding or travelling) is not a bar to the claim. This legislative scheme, being part of a social welfare statute, must be applied in a spirit that favours the victims where appropriate. 14. To this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) held as follows: