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.398 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Bengalata Dei & 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. A.K. Mohanty, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the nil award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.123 of 2016, whereby the claim application seeking compensation of ₹8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death in an alleged untoward incident was rejected. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 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 (i) The appellants’ case is that on 22.05.2015 the deceased, Santosh Kumar Tarai, while travelling from Howrah to Cuttack by the Howrah–Mysore Express, accidentally fell down from the running train near the Basta Railway Station yard and died on the spot. In connection with the occurrence, the Government Railway Police, Balasore registered U.D. Case No. 33 of 2015 and, upon inquest and investigation, concluded that the death was caused due to a fall from a running train, the said conclusion is corroborated by the post- mortem report and other contemporaneous records. (ii) The appellants, being the parents of the deceased, thereafter instituted Original Application No. 123 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking statutory compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on the ground that the death resulted from an untoward incident. (iii) The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim holding that the death did not arise out of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) and further that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers, thereby absolving the Railway Administration of liability. In the backdrop of the said dismissal, the principal questions that arise for consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, whether the occurrence constitutes an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 and whether the Railway Administration is entitled to the benefit of any of the statutory exceptions carved out under Section 124A. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) It is contended that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in its appreciation of evidence by mis-analysing the inquest report, final report, and post-mortem report, all of which were countersigned by witnesses present at the spot and consistently record that the cause of death was due to an accidental fall from a running train, a conclusion further supported by oral evidence on record. (ii) In support of their case, the appellants examined two witnesses as A.W.-1 and A.W.-2 and produced the FIR, inquest report, dead body challan, and post-mortem report, which together formed a coherent chain of evidence. However, the Tribunal discarded this material and relied exclusively on the testimony of R.W.-1 and the DRM report to hold that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no untoward incident had occurred. (iii) The statement of the gateman, as recorded by the Investigating Officer to the effect that local people had informed him that the deceased was run over while crossing the railway track, was treated as decisive and was accorded overriding importance over 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 the direct testimony of A.W.-2, who categorically deposed that he had purchased two tickets along with the deceased at Howrah and boarded the Howrah–Mysore Express together. A.W.-2 further stated that upon witnessing the fall, he attempted to pull the alarm chain, and when the train did not stop, he alighted at Basta and immediately informed the Station Master. (iv) The post-mortem report, reflecting injuries consistent with an accidental fall from a train, corroborates this version, yet the Tribunal manifestly ignored such evidence. It is further urged that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in branding the inquest report as conjectural, despite specific queries therein having been answered in the affirmative, and in treating such answers as inconclusive. The impugned findings are assailed as being based solely on the testimony of R.W.-1 and the DRM report, notwithstanding the settled position that, even under Section 191 of the Railways Act, oral statements recorded without affording an opportunity of cross-examination have no independent evidentiary value and cannot be elevated to a determinative status. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the appeal contending that A.W.-2, relied upon by the appellants, was a planted witness, as his name did not find mention either in the claim application or in the police papers, nor was he 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 present at the time of inquest, nor had he reported the incident either to the family members of the deceased or to the railway authorities. 5.
Legal Reasoning
It was submitted that in cases of alleged untoward incidents, the initial burden squarely lies upon the claimant to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and only upon successful discharge of such burden does the onus shift to the Railway Administration. In the present case, according to the respondents, the appellants failed to adduce cogent oral or documentary evidence to establish the bona fide passenger status of the deceased. No journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased during the inquest, and there was no reliable material to prove that the deceased was travelling in the train or that A.W.-2 had accompanied him. 6. Reliance was placed on the testimony of R.W.-1 to contend that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing the railway track, which, according to the respondents, does not constitute an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Further reliance was placed on the DRM’s investigation report prepared under the relevant rules framed under Section 129 of the Railways Act, which indicated that the death of the deceased was not covered under Section 123(c) of the Act. 7. It is further submitted that the beneficial nature of the legislation cannot be extended to legitimise false or unsubstantiated claims and that a liberal approach cannot operate to the prejudice of the Railways. It was thus contended that the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the 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 death did not result from an untoward incident and, by its reasoned judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed in O.A. No. 123 of 2016, correctly dismissed the claim application, holding that the respondents were not liable to pay compensation. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 8. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, framed five issues for consideration on the basis of the pleadings. While taking up the issues together for the sake of convenience, the Tribunal held that the testimonies of A.W.-1 and A.W.-2 were unreliable and stood in contradiction to the DRM report. Placing reliance on the testimony of R.W.-1, the Inquiry Officer/RPF, and the DRM report, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was trespassing on the railway track at KM No. 202/113–15 and was knocked down by a train. 9. The evidence of A.W.-2 was specifically disbelieved on the ground that his existence came to light only at the stage of filing the affidavit by way of evidence, leading the Tribunal to hold that he was not a genuine witness and that his testimony was unreliable. 10. The Tribunal further found that there was no material on record to establish that the deceased was travelling in a train or that A.W.-2 had accompanied him, particularly as no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. 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 11. It also observed that the inquest report was based on conjectures and that even though specific questions therein were answered in the affirmative, such answers were not conclusive in nature. On such findings, the Tribunal, by its reasoned judgment and award dated 28.11.2019 passed in O.A. No. 123 of 2016, dismissed the claim application, holding that the respondent Railway Administration was not liable to pay compensation to the appellant on account of the death of the deceases. V. THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: 12. This appeal calls for adjudication on the scope and application of the statutory liability regime embodied under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, a social welfare legislation enacted to provide expeditious and uniform compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents, independent of fault. The jurisdiction of this Court, while exercising appellate scrutiny over an award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, is to examine whether the findings returned by the Ld. Tribunal suffer from perversity, misapplication of law, or material misreading of evidence. 13. At the outset, it must be underscored that liability under Section 124A is strict, and the claimant is not required to establish negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. Once it is shown that (i) the victim was a passenger and (ii) death occurred in an “untoward incident,” compensation follows as a matter of statutory command, unless the Railway Administration successfully brings the case within one of the 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 narrowly construed exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124A. 14. The legislative intent underlying Section 124A has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court as remedial and beneficial, warranting a purposive construction rather than a pedantic or technical approach. The Tribunal, therefore, while adjudicating claims under the Act, is expected to adopt a claimant-centric approach consistent with the statutory object, without, however, dispensing with minimal standards of proof. 15. The expression “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) expressly includes accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. In the present case, the documentary evidence comprising the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and final police report uniformly record the cause of death as arising from a fall from a running train. The post-mortem report, in particular, notes injuries consistent with such a fall and not with a run-over or crushing injury ordinarily associated with track trespass. 16. It is trite that in railway accident claims, police papers and medical evidence constitute primary contemporaneous evidence, carrying a presumption of correctness unless convincingly rebutted. The Tribunal, however, brushed aside these documents by branding the inquest report as conjectural, without demonstrating how the medical findings or investigation conclusions were inherently unreliable by 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 unimpeachable material. Such an approach, in the considered view of this Court, reflects an erroneous interpretation of law. 17. The Tribunal further held against the appellants on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, primarily because no journey ticket was recovered from the body. This reasoning runs contrary to settled jurisprudence. It is well established that non- recovery of a journey ticket is not fatal to a claim, particularly in cases involving accidental falls, where loss or destruction of the ticket is a natural consequence. Once the claimants assert travel by train and such assertion finds corroboration from surrounding circumstances and official records, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to prove the contrary. 18. In the present case, A.W.-2 categorically deposed that he and the deceased purchased tickets together and boarded the Howrah–Mysore Express. His testimony was further supported by the sequence of conduct narrated by him, including his attempt to pull the alarm chain and subsequent reporting to the Station Master. The Tribunal disbelieved A.W.-2 solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the initial claim application or police papers. This Court finds such reasoning legally untenable. There is no statutory requirement that all witnesses must find mention in the FIR or claim application, and delayed disclosure by itself does not render testimony false, particularly when it stands corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. 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 19. The Tribunal placed decisive reliance on the DRM report and the testimony of R.W.-1 to conclude that the deceased was trespassing and was run over while crossing the railway track. This approach suffers from two fundamental infirmities. a. First, a DRM report is an internal administrative document prepared for departmental purposes. While it may be relevant, it does not enjoy primacy over judicial evidence, nor can it override statutory investigation records unless supported by cogent proof. b. Second, the statement attributed to the gateman, as relied upon by R.W.-1, is purely hearsay, being based on what unnamed local people allegedly told him. Such a statement, recorded without affording the claimants any opportunity of cross- examination, cannot be elevated to substantive evidence. Section 191 of the Railways Act does not confer evidentiary sanctity on such oral statements, and their uncritical acceptance by the Tribunal amounts to a serious procedural and substantive error. c. Third, the Tribunal appears to have implicitly treated the case as one of trespass, thereby invoking an exception to Section 124A. However, the burden to establish applicability of an exception squarely lies on the Railway Administration. No clear, cogent, or clinching evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that the deceased was voluntarily crossing 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 track or acting in a manner attracting any statutory exception. Mere conjecture or administrative inference cannot substitute the contemporaneous proof. 20. An appellate court like this Court ordinarily shows restraint in interfering with findings of fact. However, where such findings are based on exclusion of material evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, or misapplication of settled legal principles, interference is not only permissible but necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. 21. In the present case, the Tribunal’s approach reflects an inversion of the statutory burden, undue reliance on departmental reports, and disregard of medical and police evidence, thereby rendering the impugned award unsustainable in law. V. CONCLUSION: 22. In view of the foregoing analysis and reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 123 of 2016 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. 23. It is held that the death of the deceased, occurred in 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. The Railway Administration has failed to establish the applicability of any of the exceptions carved out under the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 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 24. Consequently, the appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled to statutory compensation. The respondent–Railway Administration is accordingly directed to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellants in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 25. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a TWO months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till actual payment. 26. The tribunal is further directed to release 50 % of the awarded amount to the claimants and rest of the amount be kept in an interest-bearing account for 5 years.
Decision
27. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. (Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec., 2025 Page 12 of 12