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 11:04:35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O. No.556 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Champakalata Pradhan & Anr. …. Appellant (s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Suven Kumar Pani, Advocate Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, Senior Panel Counsel CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-16.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants challenging the nil award dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA-II(u) 227/2016 seeking ₹10,00,000/- compensation on account of his death in an untoward incident. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The appellant claims that on dated 22.11.2015 the deceased, Niranjan Pradhan boarded the train No. 7850 from Bhubaneswar to Nirakarpur with a valid ticket, but he Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 accidentally fell down from the running train at Nirakarpur railway station and died as a consequence. (ii) The GROP, Nirakarpur registered an UD case No-25, dated 22.11.2015 and concluded that the deceased was run over by the train. (iii) The applicants, parents of the appellant, instituted Original Application vide OA-II(u) 227 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of the deceased in the untoward incident seeking ₹10,00,000/- compensation. (iv) The Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application and concluded that the death of the deceased was not in an untoward incident as defined U/s. 123(c)(2) and since he was not travelling in the train No. 78501 but was run over by the said at Nirakarpur railway station, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants for the death of the deceased. (v) It is humbly submitted that the central questions that arise for consideration are: (a) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger; (b) whether the incident amounts to an ’untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and; (c) whether the Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any of the exceptions under Section 124A. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the AppellantS earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The learned Tribunal committed an error in analysing the PM report that identifies that the cause of death of the deceased is due to falling down from running train which has been supported by AW-2 present at the spot of accident. (ii) The AW-2 submitted that he was also with the deceased from Bhubaneswar to Nirakarpur in the same train which was over crowded. He was standing in a few distance from the deceased in the bogie. When the train was entering into the Nirakarpur railway station the deceased accidentally fell down from the moving train and ran over by the aforesaid train due to violent jerk and push, pull among passengers. (iii) The learned Tribunal overlooked the recovery of a journey ticket during the inquest. The Chief Booking Supervisor office/BBS verified that on 22.11.2015 the above ticket no. had been issued through UTS by the operator but other particular are not available since it has been deleted from the system. Hence, the deceased was a bonafide passenger having a valid railway journey ticket. Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 (iv) The learned Tribunal overlooked the PM report that reflects that the cause of death is due to accidental fall down from running train. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
Legal Reasoning
due to system deletion. It is well settled that mere non-production of the original ticket is not fatal to a claim, particularly in cases of accidental death where loss or destruction of the ticket is a natural and probable consequence. Once prima facie evidence of travel is produced, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to prove Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 that the deceased was not a passenger. In the present case, the Railway failed to lead any cogent evidence to discharge this burden. 14. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a trespasser is thus based on inference rather than proof. Trespass, suicide, or self- inflicted injury cannot be presumed merely because the deceased was found on the railway track. The proviso to Section 124A, being in the nature of an exception to a beneficial legislation, must be strictly construed, and the Railway must establish the existence of such an exception by clear and convincing evidence. In the absence of such proof, the statutory liability to pay compensation remains intact. 15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the Tribunal misdirected itself both on facts and in law in holding that the death of the deceased did not occur in an untoward incident and that he was not a bona fide passenger. The impugned judgment suffers from perversity in appreciation of evidence and ignores the settled principles governing railway accident compensation. 16. Consequently, this Court holds that the death of the deceased was the result of an accidental fall from a running train carrying passengers and squarely falls within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The appellants, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to compensation under Section 124A, and the Railway Administration is liable to pay the same in accordance with law. Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 VI. CONCLUSION: 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A.-II(u) No. 227 of 2016 cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 18. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A.-II(u) No. 227 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. 19. The death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the relevant point of time. The Railway Administration has failed to establish the applicability of any of the statutory exceptions contemplated under the proviso to Section 124A. 20. Consequently, the appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled to get compensation as prescribed under the statutory rules governing railway accident compensation. 21. The respondent–Railway Administration is directed to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellants towards compensation, in accordance with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended. 22. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period till the date of actual payment. 23. It is further directed that 50 percent of the awarded amount shall be released in favaour of the claimants within the aforesaid period and the rest of the amount be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years.
Arguments
4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) The Respondent examined A.W. 1, Dwarikanath Pradhan, who is the father of the deceased, and concluded that he was not the eye witness to the incident. The testimony of AW-2 was unreliable as it was falsified by the statement of the guard. (ii) The investigation of RPF reveals that SS/ Nirakarpur made a station diary entry vide No. l216/A that the deceased while trespassing at K.M. No.481/20-21 was run over and killed as reported by guard and loco pilot of train No.78501. (iii) The loco pilot informed the Station Superintendent, Nirakarpur and guard of the train gave a memo to the Section Control. Therefore, it is a case of trespass and the DRM report suggests that it may be a case of suicide. It was supported by the final report. (iv) It is further humbly submitted that the deceased has not fallen from the train as alleged since he was not a passenger of the train in question as, in that case, the fellow passengers would have noticed the same. No such report of any fellow passenger has been filed before any authority or the police. Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 (v) It is submitted that the claimants have not produced any travelling ticket to prove that the deceased was, in fact, a passenger travelling in the train in question. (vi) In view of the inquest report, PM report, oral evidence on record, and having regard to the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on similar facts, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the death of the deceased did not occur as a result of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. (vii) Accordingly, the Tribunal, by its reasoned judgment and award dated 06.01.2020 in OA-II(u) No. 227 of 2016, dismissed the claim application and stated the respondent was no liable to pay compensation to the appellant on account of death of the deceased. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench heard the parties, perused the documents on record, and upon the basis of the pleadings framed five issues for consideration. (i) On the issues which were taken up together for discussion for sake of convenience, the Tribunal held that the photocopy of the railway ticket alleged recovered from the deceased during inquest proceedings as produced by the applicants and 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 11:04:35 testimony of AW-2 was unreliable as it was falsified by the statement of the guard. (ii) The Tribunal found the statement of AW-1 unreliable as in the cross-examination by the respondent-railway, he admitted that there is no mention of name of co-passenger in his claim application. (iii) In the DRM’s inquiry report, the conclusion drawn is that it is a case of suicide by the deceased. Further, in the inquest report of the GRP memo issued by the Station Superintendent, the cause of death of the deceased is mentioned as run over by the running train No. 78501. (iv) The Tribunal stated that the loco pilot reported that the deceased trespassed and got run over by the train. Therefore, it is a case of trespass and the DRM report suggests that it may be a case of suicide. (v) Thus, from the overall evidence on record, it is proved that the deceased was not travelling in the train No. 7850, as alleged, but was run over by the said at Nirakarpur railway station. Such an incident is not covered within the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. All these issues stand decided accordingly against the applicants. V. THIS COUIRT’S JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: 6. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 Bench in O.A.-II(u) No.227 of 2016, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of ₹10,00,000/- under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of their son was dismissed. The Tribunal returned a finding that the death of the deceased did not occur in an “untoward incident” and that he was not a bona fide passenger, holding the Railway Administration not liable to pay compensation. 7. The appeal requires this Court to examine whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal are sustainable in law and on facts, particularly in the light of the statutory scheme of the Railways Act which provides for compensation on the principle of strict liability. The central issues that arise for consideration are whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger, whether the incident falls within the definition of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), and whether the Railway Administration has successfully established any of the statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A. 8. It is now well settled that compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act does not depend upon proof of negligence or fault on the part of the Railway Administration. Once it is shown that the victim was a passenger and that the death occurred due to an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, liability follows automatically unless the Railway discharges the burden of proving that the case falls within one of the exceptions such as suicide, attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, or a criminal act. The burden Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 to establish these exceptions lies squarely on the Railway Administration and not on the claimants. 9. In the present case, the appellants asserted that the deceased had boarded Train No.7850 from Bhubaneswar to Nirakarpur with a valid journey ticket and accidentally fell from the running train while it was entering Nirakarpur Railway Station due to overcrowding and sudden push and pull among passengers. This version is supported by the oral testimony of AW-2, who claimed to be a co-passenger travelling in the same train and to have witnessed the occurrence. The Tribunal discarded this testimony primarily on the ground that the name of AW-2 was not mentioned in the claim application and that his version stood contradicted by the statement of the guard. 10. This Court finds such an approach to be legally flawed. Non-mention of the name of a co-passenger in the claim application cannot, by itself, render the testimony of an eyewitness unreliable, particularly when the witness has withstood cross-examination and no material contradiction or inherent improbability has been demonstrated. In proceedings of this nature, which are summary and beneficial in character, hyper-technical standards of proof applicable to criminal trials cannot be imported. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in rejecting the testimony of AW-2 on tenuous and peripheral considerations. 11. The Tribunal also placed substantial reliance on the station diary entry, the memo of the guard and loco pilot, and the DRM’s inquiry report to conclude that the deceased was a trespasser and that the incident may even be a case of suicide. However, such reports, Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 though relevant, are not substantive evidence and cannot be treated as conclusive proof, particularly when they are based on post- occurrence assumptions rather than direct observation of the manner in which the deceased came to be on the track. Notably, none of the Railway officials claimed to have actually witnessed the deceased trespassing or deliberately placing himself before the train. 12. The post-mortem report assumes critical significance in this context. The medical evidence records injuries consistent with a fall from a moving train followed by being run over, which lends corroboration to the appellants’ case of accidental fall rather than deliberate trespass or suicide. Medical evidence, being objective in nature, cannot be lightly brushed aside, and the Tribunal committed a manifest error in not giving due weight to the same while assessing the cause of death. 13. As regards the issue of bona fide passenger status, the appellants produced a photocopy of the journey ticket alleged to have been recovered during inquest, coupled with verification from the Chief Booking Supervisor’s office indicating that such ticket was indeed issued on the relevant date, though further details were unavailable
Decision
24. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec.2025 Page 12 of 12