Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.486 of 2018 (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987) Snehalata Padhi & Ors. …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv. Along with Mr. A. Acharya, Adv. Ms. Pratima Nayak, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-18.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants, in this Appeal, challenge the judgment dated 17.10.2017 passed in O.A. No.164 of 2013 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar dismissing their appeal. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 25.05.2013, while the deceased was returning from Ranchi railway station to Kharagpur by Train No.18616, Hatia-Howrah express train, Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 due to push and pull of co-passengers, he accidentally fell down at Platform No.1 of Namkum railway station and slipped into railway track and he was run over by the said train and died on the spot. The deceased was a bona fide passenger. His journey ticket valid from Ranchi to Kharagpur was lost in the accident. (ii) The GRPS, Ranchi registered UD Case No. 33113 and investigated into the matter. The Police, during the inquest, recorded cause ofdeath of the deceased to be fall down from running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report, and other papers. (iii) The Appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, thereafter, instituted Original Application No.164 of 2013 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 l24A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of the deceased Prafulla Padhi in the untoward incident. (iv) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 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 dated 17.10.2017 passed in O.A. No.164 of 2013 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar II. 3. Bench, Bhubaneswar, the Appellants preferred this 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, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 (i) It was submitted that the central questions that arise for consideration are: (i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger; (ii) whether the incident amounts to an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section l24A of the Railways Act, 1989; and (iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any of the exceptions under Section 124A. The Tribunal found that no ticket was produced or recovered during investigation and that the incident was attributable to the negligence of the deceased. (ii) At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section l24A of the Railways Act enacts a regime of strict liability. Once it is established that death or injury has occurred as a result of an ‘untoward incident’, the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, unless the case falls within the narrowly defined exceptions of suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause. Negligence, even gross negligence, is not among these exceptions. This position was firmly settled in Union of India vrs. Prabhakuran Vijaya Kumar1, where the Supreme Court held that fault or negligence is irrelevant under the no-fault scheme of Section 124A. (iii) On the question of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the non-production of a ticket. The law on this issue stands settled in Union of India vrs. Rina Devi2, wherein the Supreme Court recognised that in train accident cases, tickets are frequently lost, misplaced, or destroyed during the incident or subsequent medical treatment. It was held that bona fide passenger status may be