Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O No. 279 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Nirupar Manta& Ors. …. Appellant(s) Union of India …. Respondent(s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Adv Mr. J. Pani, CGC. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-14.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA No. 289 of 2016, which dismissed the claim application for compensation arising out of the death 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 brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 (i) On 18.02.2016, the deceased Shri Kumar Manta was travelling from Bangalore Cant to Guwahati on the strength of valid journey ticket by the Guwahati SF Express. (ii) During the course of the journey the compartment was overcrowded, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train in between Soro and Balasore Railway Station, as a result of which he succumbed to injuries and died on the spot. (iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted Original Application No. 289 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity), seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly occasioned by an “untoward incident”. (iv) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed five issues for consideration and, upon detailed examination, concluded that the victim died due to his own negligence and was not a bona fide passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed. (v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.01.2020passed in O.A. No. 289of 2016 by the learned Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the Appellants preferred this appeal. Page 2 of 19
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Appellants submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased, is against the weight of the evidence on record. It is contended that the impugned judgment suffers from improper appreciation of material facts and is bad in law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside. (ii) At the very threshold, it is imperative to delineate the statutory framework governing the liability of the Railway Administration. Section 124A of the Railways Act embodies a principle of strict (no- fault) liability, mandating compensation once it is established that the death or injury has resulted from an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act. The liability is absolute, subject only to the limited statutory exceptions of suicide, attempted suicide, self- inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural causes or disease. Significantly, negligence—however gross—does not constitute an exception under the statutory scheme. This legal position now stands authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1, wherein it was held that the element of fault or negligence is wholly immaterial for 1(2008) 9 SCC 527 Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 determining entitlement to compensation under this no-fault liability framework. (iii) On the issue of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal appears to have laid undue and erroneous emphasis upon the non-production of a valid travel ticket. The law on this point now stands conclusively crystallised by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi2wherein it was categorically held that, in cases of railway accidents or untoward incidents, the travel ticket is often lost, misplaced, or destroyed in the course of the mishap. The Court, therefore, held that the status of a bona fide passenger need not be established by direct documentary evidence alone, but may also be inferred from circumstantial or oral evidence, such as eyewitness accounts or surrounding attendant facts. Consequently, non- recovery or non-production of the ticket, by itself, cannot be treated as fatal to a claim for compensation, provided that the materials on record reasonably indicate that the deceased or injured person was a lawful passenger travelling with due authority. (iv) The Final Report of the Investigating Agency, when read conjointly with the Post-mortem Report and the Inquest Proceedings, unequivocally establishes that the death in question was the result of a fall from a moving train. These documents, being contemporaneous official records prepared in the due discharge of statutory functions, are entitled to a presumption of correctness and regularity in official acts, unless rebutted by cogent 2(2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 and credible evidence. In the present case, the Respondent- Railways has failed to discharge that burden, having produced no substantive evidence to contradict the official findings, save for speculative and self-serving assertions contained in the Divisional Railway Manager’s (DRM) inquiry report, which cannot, by itself, displace the evidentiary value of statutory records prepared under due process. (v) The Learned Tribunal, without duly adverting to or taking judicial cognizance of the attendant factual circumstances borne out from the evidentiary corpus, has manifestly erred in rejecting the claim application on the untenable premise that the death of the deceased fell within one of the statutory exceptions engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an “untoward incident” within the contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) thereof. The findings so rendered stand in palpable contravention of the preponderant weight of evidence, are devoid of cogent juridical foundation, and have been arrived at in derogation of the settled principles governing the presumption of strict liability envisaged under the beneficial and welfare-oriented scheme of the Act. Such findings, being ex facie perverse, legally unsustainable, and contrary to both law and evidence, are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside in the larger interest of justice and equity. (vi) The Learned Tribunal has fallen into a manifest and patent error of law in returning a finding that the death of the deceased was Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 suicidal in nature—a conclusion founded entirely upon conjecture and surmise, and unsupported by any credible or substantive evidentiary foundation. Such an inference, rendered in the absence of cogent proof or corroborative material, is contrary to the settled canons of evidentiary appreciation and runs afoul of the statutory presumption of accidental causation envisaged under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The law enjoins that unless the Railway Administration discharges the burden of establishing, by reliable and affirmative evidence, that the case squarely falls within one of the enumerated statutory exceptions, the presumption of accidental and compensable causation must prevail. The Tribunal’s finding to the contrary is, therefore, legally unsustainable, perverse on facts, and liable to be interfered with by this Court.
Decision
(vii) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed in the O.A. No. 289 of 2016 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar may be set aside, as the same is not sustainable in law. He further prayed for a direction to the Respondent to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation along with 12% interest per annum from the date of application. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) In cases arising out of alleged untoward incidents under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the initial onus upon the claimant is limited to establishing, on the basis of the preponderance of Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 probabilities, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred as a result of an untoward incident during the course of a valid journey. Once such foundational facts are proved, a statutory presumptions operates in favour of the claimant, and the burden then shifts to the Railway Administration to disprove the same by adducing cogent, credible, and affirmative evidence. In the absence of such rebuttal, the liability of the Railways to compensate under Section 124A becomes strict and absolute, irrespective of fault or negligence, consistent with the beneficial and welfare character of the legislation. (ii) It is contended, on behalf of the Respondent–Railways, that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge the initial burden of establishing the foundational facts essential to attract the statutory liability contemplated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is urged that the materials placed on record, when objectively scrutinized in the light of the contemporaneous documentary and circumstantial evidence, do not inspire confidence in the plea of an accidental fall from a running train. On the contrary, the attendant circumstances, including the nature and location of the injuries, the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony, and the discrepancies emerging from the inquiry report, are said to unequivocally indicate a self- inflicted act or deliberate conduct on the part of the deceased. Such conduct, according to the Respondent, squarely attracts the Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 statutory exceptions expressly engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A, thereby excluding the operation of the principle of strict or no-fault liability otherwise attaching to the Railway Administration under the statutory scheme. (iii) It is further submitted that Section 124A creates a qualified form of strict liability, the benefit of which cannot be invoked in situations where the death or injury results from the deliberate or intentional acts of the passenger himself. The provision, being in the nature of a beneficial legislation, cannot be stretched to extend relief to cases falling within the express prohibitions carved out by the Legislature. The Respondent thus asserts that, in the present case, the deceased’s conduct falls within the mischief of the statutory exception relating to self-inflicted injury or suicidal act, and consequently, the Railway Administration cannot be saddled with vicarious or statutory liability. It is therefore contended that the Learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition, the same being devoid of merit, and that the findings recorded therein are consistent with the evidentiary record and the legislative intent underlying Section 124A. (iv) The Learned Tribunal, upon an exhaustive evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the course of proceedings, has rightly disbelieved the testimony of A.W.-1, the father of the deceased, finding the same to be wanting in credibility and tainted with embellishment and material Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 inconsistencies. A careful reading of his deposition reveals that his narrative of events was replete with contradictions, both inter se and vis-(cid:224)-vis the contemporaneous records, thereby eroding the reliability of his version. The Tribunal, while exercising its discretion as the final fact-finding authority, observed that the witness’s account appeared to be coloured by self-interest and motivated by an evident desire to secure compensation, rather than constituting a truthful and spontaneous narration of the incident. (v) It was further noted that A.W.-1 was neither an eyewitness to the occurrence nor possessed of any direct knowledge of the manner in which the death took place. His statements were largely based on conjecture and hearsay, lacking corroboration from any independent or credible source. The Tribunal, in its reasoned assessment, held that such testimony, bereft of inherent consistency, corroborative support, or evidentiary value, could not be relied upon to establish the occurrence of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The absence of contemporaneous corroboration, coupled with the inherent improbabilities embedded in his version, justified the Tribunal in according no probative weight to his testimony. (vi) Accordingly, the Tribunal’s decision to discard the evidence of A.W.-1 as unreliable and unworthy of acceptance cannot be faulted, being founded on sound judicial reasoning and in Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 conformity with the well-settled principles of appreciation of evidence, which require that testimony be accepted only when it bears the imprimatur of truthfulness, consistency, and probability. (vii) The Appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. the inquest proceedings, as well as other contemporaneous records, do not indicate recovery of any travel ticket form the person or belongings of the deceased. The Respondents have further contended that the Ticket No. subsequently produced by the claimants was fabricated document, allegedly planted with the mala fide intent of substantiating a false claim for compensation. In the absence of any cogent, reliable, and corroborative evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the foundational requirement for attracting the statutory liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the claim application is rendered untenable in law and not maintainable. 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. Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 (i) 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 allegedly recovered, was later insertion and not genuine. This conclusion was drawn after noting discrepancies between the inquest report and the post- mortem report challan entries. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased. (ii) The Tribunal further observed that neither the on-duty guard nor the loco pilot of the alleged train reported witnessing any untoward incident during the journey. Moreover, there is an absence of any eyewitness or co-passenger testimony to substantiate the claim that the deceased fell from the running train. This lack of direct evidence seriously undermines the assertion that the death occurred due to an accident during the course of travel. (iii) It was further stated that upon receipt of a memo from the Station Authorities, the Government Railway Police, Balasore, initiated inquest proceedings. As per the report of the key man, a male person was found lying dead approximately two meters away from the Down Line track between Soro (SFO) and Markona (MKO) stations. During the course of the inquest, a personal search of the deceased was conducted, which led to the recovery of an Election Identity Card and a Swasthya Bima Card from his pocket. No journey ticket, however, was found in his Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 possession. Based on the recovered documents, the identity of the deceased was duly ascertained. (iv) The Tribunal held that such circumstances does not demonstrate the accidental fall from the train, and therefore the occurrence was not an “untoward incident”. Since establishing such an incident is sine qua non for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Act, this essential requirement remains unfulfilled. And consequently, the Railways are protected under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act. (v) The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the Divisional Railway Manager’s (DRM) Report, observing that the same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants during the course of proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, treated the said report as a material piece of corroborative evidence supporting the Respondents’ contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no incident of accidental fall from a running train had in fact occurred. The uncontroverted report, in the considered view of the Tribunal, lent substantial credence to the Respondents’ version and consequently fortified the ultimate conclusion leading to the dismissal of the claim application. (vi) Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed. Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. The central questions that arise for consideration are: (a) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (b) whether the incident amounts to an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989? (c) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A? 8. The Supreme Court, as well as this Court, have consistently propounded that the liability envisaged under Section 124A of the Railways Act, is founded upon the doctrine of strict liability, also termed no-fault liability, which constitutes a marked departure from the traditional common law principle of fault-based liability. The provision embodies a statutory recognition of the social welfare objective underlying the legislation, namely, to ensure that victims of railway accidents or untoward incidents, or their dependents, are expeditiously compensated without the onerous burden of establishing negligence or wrongful act on the part of the Railway Administration. 9. The jurisprudential foundation of Section 124A rests upon the legislative intent to make the Railways—being an instrumentality of the State and engaged in a hazardous public utility service—absolutely liable to compensate passengers who suffer death or injury during the Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 course of railway travel, regardless of fault, neglect, or default. As expounded by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar3wherein the provision reflects the principle that where an enterprise engages in a dangerous or inherently risky activity for public benefit, it must bear the cost of accidents arising therefrom as a part of its social obligation. The Court, while invoking the spirit of the principle enunciated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4, observed that such liability flows inexorably from the nature of the activity itself and not from any act of negligence. 10. It is, therefore, well settled that once an incident is brought within the ambit of Section 124A—whether as a “railway accident” or an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)—the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation becomes automatic and absolute, operating as a statutory imposition rather than a matter of adjudicative discretion. The question of fault, negligence, or contributory negligence becomes wholly immaterial in such cases. The only limitation to this otherwise absolute liability is contained in the proviso to Section 124A, which enumerates specific exceptions such as suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal acts, intoxication, or natural causes. 11. Hence, the judicial scrutiny in proceedings under this provision is confined not to the determination of negligence, but rather to the ascertainment of whether the facts of the case fall within any of the