The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O. No.498 of 2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987) Kalpana Mal & Ors. …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India & Anr. …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv. Mr. Biswajit Moharana, Sr.P.C. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-11.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants in the present appeal are assailing the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in OA No.25 of 2013, whereby their claim for compensation for the death of the deceased in a railway accident was dismissed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 26.9.2011, the deceased, Anil Kumar Mal, boarded Express Train No. 22855 at Balasore Railway Station for his journey to Bhubaneswar. Page 1 of 13
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 (ii) During the course of the journey, due to heavy rush and the push and pull of co-passengers, the deceased fell from the train near the North Cabin of JJKR Railway Station. He was shifted to the local hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the fall. (iii) The GROP, JJKR, registered UD Case No. 28 of 2011, conducted an investigation and submitted its final report, declaring that the death of the deceased occurred due to an accidental fall from a running train. (iv) Subsequently, the appellants filed a claim bearing OA No. 25 of 2013 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. (v) The Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, heard both parties and held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in respect of the alleged journey. The Tribunal further held that the respondent was not liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and accordingly dismissed the claim. (vi) Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present II. 3. (i) appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The appellants contended that the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, is founded on surmises and conjectures rather than on the materials available on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. (ii) The appellants further submitted that they adduced cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate their claim, whereas the Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 respondent did not produce any rebuttal evidence. Consequently, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, committed gross illegality in dismissing the claim solely on the ground that no journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased. (iii) The appellants asserted that the evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased was caused by an accidental fall from a running train, and there is no evidence giving rise to any suspicion of foul play. (iv) The appellants submitted that Appellant No.2, examined as A.W.1, deposed in his affidavit that he had accompanied his father to the railway station, had seen him purchase a valid ticket for travel from Balasore to Bhubaneswar, and had returned home after the deceased boarded the train. The onus to prove that the deceased was a ticketless traveller lay on the Railway. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the appellants was not rebutted by the respondent in any manner. (v) The appellants contended that when a person dies due to an accident involving a fall from a train, it is unreasonable to expect the legal representatives to produce the journey ticket and denial of compensation on that ground is unsustainable. (vi) The appellants asserted that Ticket Collectors are posted at every railway station, and no person can enter the station premises without a valid platform ticket or journey ticket. This further supports the inference that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and not a ticketless traveller. (vii) The appellants asserted that it is well-settled law that they are not required to strictly prove that the untoward incident occurred due to any wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the Railway Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 Administration. The only circumstance in which the Railway can escape liability is if the incident occurred due to the criminal act of the deceased, which was neither pleaded nor established by the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order is contrary to settled law. (viii) The appellants submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal was established to provide expeditious relief to victims of railway accidents and that, being a piece of beneficial legislation, the Railways Act should not be interpreted in a manner that denies claims on flimsy or hyper- technical grounds. (ix) The appellants contended that they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- in terms of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident until the date of actual payment. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 4. (i)
Legal Reasoning
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: There is no eyewitness to the alleged fall from the train, and the case rests solely on the opinion of the police without any concrete supporting evidence. (ii) The deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was recovered from his possession, although other articles, including an air bag, mobile phone, and clothes, were found intact. This indicates selective loss of the ticket. Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 (iii) The inquiry report of the Divisional Railway authorities records no instance of a sudden jerk of the train or push and pull by co-passengers. Neither the on-duty train guard nor any passenger reported the alleged incident to the Station Master, and the train guard confirmed having no knowledge of any fall. IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, framed five issues for adjudication. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and final report consistently described the incident as an accidental fall from a running train. The Tribunal held that such documentary evidence established that the death occurred in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal observed that no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased during the inquest, although other articles were seized. The testimony of A.W.1, the son of the deceased, who deposed to having seen his father purchase the ticket, was not accepted, being an interested witness. The Tribunal held that the plea of selective loss of the ticket was not convincing in light of the recovery of other belongings. Accordingly, it concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the respondent was not liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Page 5 of 13 V. THECOURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The primary issue for determination in the present appeal is whether the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, erred in concluding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and, consequently, in dismissing the appellants’ claim for compensation. For the proper consideration of this issue, this Court deems it apposite to first delineate the statutory framework governing claims arising from railway accidents. The liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation is governed by Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, circumscribes the liability of the railway administration in the event of accidents. It provides for compensation in respect of death or personal injury sustained by passengers, as well as for any loss, damage, or deterioration of goods belonging to passengers and accompanying them in their compartments or on the train, arising as a consequence of such accidents. 15. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, provides for compensation to passengers in the event of an untoward incident. The provision imposes strict liability on the railway administration to compensate a passenger who is injured, or the dependants of a passenger who is killed, irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect, or default by the railway. Compensation is, however, excluded in specific circumstances such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, the passenger’s own criminal act, Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 acts committed under intoxication or insanity, or death/injury from natural causes or medical treatment not caused by the untoward incident. 16. An untoward incident, as defined in Section 123(c) of the Act, includes the commission of a terrorist act, violent attacks, robbery or dacoity, rioting, shoot-outs, or arson within the precincts of a train or railway station, and the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 17. These provisions, read conjointly, establish a framework of strict liability. The liability of the Railways to compensate is not contingent upon proof of negligence or fault but arises automatically upon the occurrence of an untoward incident, subject only to the narrow exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A.The legislative intent underlying these provisions is to create a no-fault compensatory framework, so that the dependants of a victim of an untoward incident are not subjected to protracted litigation on questions of fault. 18. 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. 19. Given that the Railways Act, 1989 is intended to provide timely relief to victims of railway accidents and their dependants, it is a social welfare legislation. Accordingly, it must be interpreted liberally to advance its object rather than defeat it. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against 1(2008) 9 SCC 527. Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 adopting a hyper-technical approach while dealing with claims of railway accident victims or their dependants. 20. It is also pertinent to observe that these statutory provisions apply 21. 22. specifically to passengers, as defined under Section 2(29) of the Act, which includes any person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The Explanation to Section 124A further clarifies that the benefit of compensation is confined to such passengers. Notably, while the language of the statute refers to travel with a valid ticket, it is well-settled that the mere absence of a ticket on the person at the time of the incident does not disentitle the passenger from compensation. Further, once the claimant furnishes an initial affidavit and evidence, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration. The principle that emerges is that the initial burden on the claimant may be discharged through affidavits and contemporaneous documents. Once discharged, the onus lies on the Railways, and the absence of a ticket, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat the claim. 23. The Supreme Court inUnion of India v. Rina Devi2, succinctlyclarified this position as hereinunder: “29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and 2(2019) 3 SCC 572. Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 24. This principle has been reiterated in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India3 and Kamukayi v. Union of India4. 25. With this framework in view, the facts of the present case may be 26. 27. examined. The primary contention revolves around whether the deceased, Anil Kumar Mal, was a bona fide passenger at the relevant time and, consequently, whether the appellants are entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal, while acknowledging that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to a fall from a running train, placed decisive weight on the absence of a journey ticket on his person and dismissed the claim solely on that ground. The Tribunal noted that other belongings, including an air bag, mobile phone, and articles of clothing, were recovered intact, but as the journey ticket was the only item missing, it gave rise to the consideration that the deceased did not possess a valid ticket to begin with. 28. The record reveals that on 26.09.2011, the deceased boarded Express Train No. 22855 at Balasore Railway Station for travel to Bhubaneswar. Evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the train was overcrowded, with significant push and pull among passengers, and that the