Orissa High Court · 2015
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.459 of 2020 (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987) Bhikari Charan Sahoo 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. Gajendranath Rout, Adv. Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-04.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants in this appeal challenge the order dated 06.01.2020 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. II/245/2016, by which their claim application was rejected. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 28 October 2015, the deceased, along with one of his friends, boarded the D.M.O. Train No. 78412 for travel from Nirakarpur to Bhubaneswar. Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (ii) On the said date, the train was overcrowded with passengers and, while it commenced its movement, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train owing to a sudden jerk and the heavy rush of passengers. (iii) The train was thereafter halted, and the deceased was taken to the Railway Hospital at Khurda Road, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained. (iv) Following the death of the deceased, U.D. Case No. 27 of 2015 was registered by the Government Railway Police Station, Khurda Road. An inquest was conducted, and thereafter the body was sent for post- mortem examination at the District Headquarters Hospital, Khurda. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the final form concluding that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries sustained in the fall from the running train. (v) The appellants, being the family members of the deceased passenger, filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking compensation from the respondent for the untoward incident. The Railway Claims Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, framed five issues for adjudication and, by order dated 06.01.2020, dismissed the claim application. (vi) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants have preferred the II. 3. present appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (i)
Decision
The Appellants submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and bad in law. (ii) The Appellants submitted that while the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar rightly held that the deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket and was thus a bona fide passenger, it erred in concluding that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident.” (iii) The Appellants contended that the finding attributing negligence to the deceased is unsupported by any pleading or evidence on behalf of the respondent and rests merely on conjecture. The Tribunal further erred in accepting the uncorroborated DRM report without examining the officials who prepared it, and in shifting the burden upon the Appellants to disprove its contents. (iv) The Appellants contended that the law is well settled that once the claimants establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who fell from the running train owing to a sudden jerk and overcrowding, the burden shifts upon the respondent to establish the contrary by cogent evidence, which the respondent failed to discharge. (v) The Appellants asserted that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a piece of benevolent legislation to be construed liberally so that the dependants of accident victims are not denied relief on technicalities; the impugned order is therefore unsustainable in law. 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 Respondent contended that the deceased, despite repeated cautions, attempted to board the last bogey of a moving train in a Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 negligent and reckless manner, resulting in self-inflicted injuries leading to his death. The direct testimony of the on-duty Guard, corroborated by the police and DRM reports, established that the act was not accidental but a deliberate disregard of obvious danger. (ii) The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, rightly concluded that the death resulted from the deceased’s own negligent act and not from an untoward incident. Once the occurrence was found to fall within proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the question of whether the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket became immaterial, since possession of a ticket does not confer licence to act recklessly. (iii) The Respondent further contended that, in claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the initial burden of proof lies upon the claimants, and only upon its discharge does the onus shift to the Railways. In the present case, the appellants failed to establish that the occurrence was an untoward incident, and the direct testimony of the Guard undermined their case. (iv) The Respondent asserted that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a welfare provision designed to secure compensation in genuine cases of accidental injury or death on the principle of strict liability. However, the statutory exceptions must be preserved to prevent abuse; extending compensation in cases of reckless or prohibited conduct would dilute proviso (b), incentivise irresponsible behaviour, and deplete public funds meant for genuine victims. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR: 5. 6. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, framed five issues for adjudication. On the question of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal noted that a valid journey ticket had been recovered from the body of the deceased, which was not disputed by the Railways. The deceased was therefore held to be a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989. 7. With respect to whether the death was the result of an untoward incident, the Tribunal relied on the statement of the on-duty Guard and the DRM’s report to conclude that the deceased, while attempting to board a moving train, stumbled and was run over. 8. The Tribunal observed that the applicants failed to cross-examine the Guard or the officials who prepared the DRM’s report, and found no infirmity in the same. It was held that the conduct of the deceased was rash, reckless, and imprudent, and that the death amounted to a self- inflicted injury within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the death of the deceased did not constitute an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The applicants were accordingly held not entitled to compensation, and the claim application was dismissed. Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 V. THE COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is necessary to outline the statutory framework relevant to the present case. The liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation is governed by Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 12. Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides as follows: “124. Extent of liability.—When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages railway respect administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. thereof, the in Explanation.—For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty.” 13. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which deals with compensation on account of untoward incidents, provides as follows: “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.— When in the course of working a railway an untoward Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 14. Sections 124 and 124A thus embody a regime of strict liability or no-fault liability. Compensation is payable for an untoward incident irrespective Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 of any wrongful act, negligence, or fault on the part of the Railway Administration, subject only to the exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 124A. 15. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1 held that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies the principle of strict liability, or no-fault liability, in cases of railway accidents, and once a case falls within its ambit, the question of fault or negligence becomes irrelevant. 16. In Jameela v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court observed that falling from a train due to one’s own negligence does not fall within any exception under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 to deny compensation. 17. With respect to the exception of “self-inflicted injury,” the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi3 clarified that the term requires an element of intention to inflict injury, and not mere negligence. It was observed as hereunder: “25. 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 the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652] laying