Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 374 of 2017 (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.) Amruti Nahak & Ors. …. Appellant (s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. G.N. Rout, Adv. Mr. J. Pani, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants, in the present appeal, have assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 196 of 2013. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The husband of Appellant No.1 and the father of Appellant Nos.2 to 6, namely Gopal Nahak, along with his friend, first purchased a journey ticket from Berhampur to Palasa and travelled on the D.M.U. Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 Train up to Palasa Railway Station. After alighting there, they purchased another ticket from Palasa to Kothavalasa and boarded the train. When the train commenced its journey, due to a sudden jerk, Gopal Nahak accidentally fell from the train at the platform of Palasa Railway Station and sustained multiple grievous injuries on vital parts of his body. (ii) With the assistance of Railway personnel, the injured was shifted by ambulance to Palasa Hospital. Owing to his critical condition, he was
Legal Reasoning
thereafter referred to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 03.10.2012 during the course of treatment. (iii) On 04.10.2012, the Palasa Government Railway Police registered U.D. Case No. 136 of 2012 on the basis of the death message, conducted inquest over the body, and forwarded it for post-mortem examination. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the Final Report concluding that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the DMU Train while travelling and died of the injuries sustained in the said accident. (iv) The appellants, being the dependent family members of the deceased, filed Original Application No. 196 of 2013 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation for the untoward incident. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and accordingly dismissed the Original Application. (v) Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. II. 3. (i) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record in their proper perspective and, by proceeding on a misconception of facts, illegally dismissed the Original Application. The impugned order is arbitrary, perverse, vitiated by non-application of mind, and liable to be set aside. (ii) The Appellants submitted that the evidence of the claimants, the DRM report, the Railway Police investigation, and the RPF/PSA Diary Entry all establish that the deceased was travelling in the DMU Train at the relevant time and accidentally fell, sustaining fatal injuries. The fall, therefore, constitutes an “untoward incident” entitling the appellants to compensation. The Tribunal erred in misinterpreting the definition of “untoward incident” under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. (iii) The Appellants contended that the accidental fall of the deceased from the train stands admitted, and there is neither any pleading nor was any evidence to suggest that it was self-inflicted, or the result of any criminal act, intoxication, or insanity. Hence, the Railway cannot deny compensation. In order to buttress this argument, reliance was placed Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors1. (iv) The Appellants submitted that they proved their case by adducing oral evidence regarding the purchase of a journey ticket by the deceased, corroborated by his co-passenger examined as P.W.2, thereby establishing his bona fide passengership in the DMU Train. This evidence was ignored by the learned Tribunal, which illegally held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and, on that basis, denied compensation. While deciding Issues 1, 2, and 3, the Tribunal proceeded on presumptions beyond the record, rendering the finding
Decision
unsustainable in law. The impugned judgment is thus illegal, arbitrary, and erroneous, and liable to be set aside. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The case of the appellants does not fall within the scope of Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, as the deceased was not a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29). No journey ticket or travel authority was recovered from his possession. It is settled that a claim under Section 124A can succeed only when bona fide passengership and the occurrence of an untoward incident are both established. (ii) The enquiry conducted by the Railway Protection Force revealed that the deceased, who had been suffering from cancer and had left his 1 (2008) 9 SCC 527. Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 village with the intention of working as a labourer in a brick factory, was travelling unauthorisedly. Constable P. R. Prasad of RPF Post, Palasa, who escorted the injured to hospital, deposed that when he found the victim in a conscious state, the latter admitted that he was travelling without a ticket and had been sitting near the footboard of the DMU Train. (iii) None of the documents produced by the appellants establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that he died by falling from the train. The police Final Report only proceeded on a presumption and was unsupported by any eyewitness account. In fact, P.W.2 gave no evidence about the deceased’s journey, and the alleged co-passenger was neither named in the Original Application nor mentioned in the police report. (iv) In these circumstances, the appellants’ case amounts to a false and fabricated attempt to portray the occurrence as an untoward incident. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts, and its findings are legal, just, and in accordance with the Act. Extending compensation in such a situation would virtually endorse unauthorised travel and encourage similar claims. The impugned judgment is therefore well-founded and calls for no interference. IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, upon hearing the parties and perusing the record, framed five issues, namely whether the deceased died due to an accidental fall within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, whether he was a bona fide Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 6. 7. 8. 9. passenger, whether the Railways were protected under Section 124A, whether the applicants were the dependents of the deceased, and to what relief, if any, they were entitled. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimants had not produced any journey ticket or examined the alleged co- passenger to establish the deceased’s travel. The affidavit evidence of the widow was found insufficient as she admitted she was not an eyewitness and further stated that her husband had been suffering from cancer for several years. The DRM’s inquiry recorded that the deceased was travelling without authority, and the Final Report of the GRP suggested he was working as a coolie at Palasa Railway Station. In this backdrop, the Tribunal concluded that the injuries were not established to have resulted from an accidental fall but were attributable to negligence or self-inflicted causes. It therefore held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 10. While acknowledging that Section 124A is a beneficial provision, the Tribunal observed that extending compensation to unauthorised persons would legitimise irregular practices and encourage further misuse. On these findings, the claim application was dismissed. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 12. The liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation is governed by Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124 deals with accidents such as collisions, derailments, or other accidents to trains carrying passengers. Section 124A provides for compensation in cases of “untoward incidents,” a term defined in Section 123(c) to include, inter alia, the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 13. Both provisions embody a regime of strict or no-fault liability. Compensation is payable irrespective of fault or negligence on the part of the Railway Administration, subject only to the narrow exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124A, namely suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, a criminal act, intoxication or insanity, or natural causes or disease. 14. 15. 16. The legal position in this regard is well settled. In Prabhakaran (supra), the Supreme Court held that claims under Section 124A proceed on no- fault liability; questions of negligence or contributory negligence are irrelevant once the occurrence is an “untoward incident.” In Jameela v. Union of India2, it was reiterated that even if the passenger’s own negligence contributed to the fall, compensation cannot be denied unless the case is brought within a statutory exception. In Union of India v. Rina Devi3, the Supreme Court clarified that “self- inflicted injury” under proviso (b) presupposes a deliberate intention to cause harm to oneself, and mere negligence does not suffice. 2 2010 12 SCC 443. 3 2019 3 SCC 572. Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 17. A principal contention advanced by the Railways is the non-recovery of a journey ticket, contending that the deceased was therefore not a “bona fide passenger” within the meaning of Section 2(29). It is, however, significant to notice the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra), wherein it was categorically held that bona fide passengership may be established on the basis of oral or circumstantial evidence even in the absence of a recovered ticket. The Court recognised that tickets are frequently lost or destroyed in the course of an accident, during removal of the injured to hospital, or while in police custody. 18. Turning to the specific facts of the present case, the claimants’ case is that the deceased, Gopal Nahak, purchased tickets and travelled with a co-passenger from Berhampur to Palasa and then from Palasa to Kothavalasa. When the train commenced movement at Palasa, a sudden jerk caused him to fall, resulting in grievous injuries. He was first taken to Palasa Hospital and thereafter to RIMS, Srikakulam, where he succumbed on 03.10.2012. 19. The Palasa GRP registered U.D. Case No. 136 of 2012, conducted inquest, forwarded the body for post-mortem, and in the Final Report concluded that the deceased fell from the DMU passenger train and died due to the injuries sustained. Hospital records and other contemporaneous public documents are consistent with this narrative. 20. The claimants led oral evidence, including that of a co-passenger (P.W.2), regarding purchase of tickets and the journey undertaken. This evidence, read with the FIR/death message, inquest, post-mortem and hospital records, discharges the initial burden on the claimants to show Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 21. 22. that the deceased was travelling by a passenger train and that his death was the result of an accidental fall, which constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ within Section 123(c)(2). The burden then shifted to the Railways to disprove bona fide passengership or to bring the case within one of the provisos to Section 124A. The Railways rely on the DRM/RPF enquiry narrative that no ticket was found and that the deceased may have been engaged in coolie work at Palasa, together with a constable’s assertion that the injured admitted he had no ticket and was sitting near the footboard. This material does not meet the requisite standard, being speculative and uncorroborated by independent evidence, and is outweighed by the consistent public records of the GRP, the inquest and post-mortem, and the hospital papers. 23. Even if the deceased was near the footboard, that circumstance at most indicates negligence. Under the ratio in Rina Devi (supra), negligence does not translate into ‘self-inflicted injury.’ There is no case of suicide, attempted suicide, intoxication, criminal act, or natural causes. None of the statutory exceptions is attracted. 24. As regards non-recovery of a ticket, this Court reiterates that the statutory definition of ‘passenger’ must be applied with the evidentiary flexibility recognised by the Supreme Court. In the present case, credible oral evidence of the co-passenger is corroborated by public records such as the GRP Final Report, the inquest, the post-mortem and the hospital records, which establish that the deceased was travelling on a passenger train and fell therefrom. The absence of a recovered Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 ticket is therefore not decisive. The Railways have failed to disprove bona fide passengership with any cogent evidence of ticketless travel. 25. On the totality of the material, this Court is satisfied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, that his death occurred in the course of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, and that the occurrence constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ within Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The view taken by the Tribunal, resting on conjecture, a rigid insistence on ticket production, and an incorrect application of the statutory exceptions, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. VI. CONCLUSION: 26. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The death of Gopal Nahak is held to have occurred in the course of an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the appellants to compensation under Section 124A. The appellants are entitled to statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal until realisation. The respondent Railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within twelve weeks, whereupon it shall be disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law. 28. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/ (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Page 10 of 10