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.638 of 2019 (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.) Sanju Bag …. Appellant (s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Adv. Mr. D. Gochhayat, Sr. P.C. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-01.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 04.12.2017 passed in O.A. No. 29/2014 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 25.03.2013, Bhaja Bag was traveling in the VSKP-KRBA Express from Titlagarh to Raipur Railway Station when he fell from the train between Rahenbhata (RNBT) and Muribahal Railway Station at KM No. 190/10-09, resulting in his death. Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 (ii) The GRPS Titlagarh registered UD Case No. 06 of 2013 in connection with the incident. (iii) The appellant filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal. (iv) The Learned Tribunal framed the issues and, on 04.12.2017, pronounced the judgment, observing that the appellant had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It further held that the death did not result from an untoward railway accident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, and accordingly, the Railway Administration was exempt from liability under Section 124-A. (v) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.12.2017 in O.A. No. 29/2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, dismissing the Original II. 3. (i) Application, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The appellant contended that the judgment dated 04.12.2017, dismissing the claim on the grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was not an untoward occurrence, is without reasons and liable to be set aside. (ii) The Tribunal allegedly failed to properly consider the affidavit of Bishwaram Bag, who deposed that he witnessed the deceased board the VSKP-KRBA Express at Titlagarh Railway Station at 2:40 AM and fall shortly after departure, with his body striking a pole. He also informed the train driver and the Station Master at Kantabanjhi. Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 (iii) The appellant submitted that the report of SI/RPF Titlagarh to DSC/RPF Sambalpur dated 20.05.2014 did not include statements from the Guard or Driver, which could have substantiated the claim, and the Tribunal erred in relying solely on the GRPS/Titlagarh report. (iv) The appellant contended that the Tribunal disregarded key evidence, including the admission of R.W.-1 that the deceased fell at KM 190/10- 09 on 25.03.2013. In the absence of any run-over report or evidence of suicidal intent, the conclusion of suicide or insanity is legally unsustainable. (v) The appellant submitted that to invoke clause (d) of Section 124-A, the respondent was required to plead and prove insanity at the time of the incident through medical evidence or witnesses, which was not done, rendering the Tribunal’s conclusion on legal insanity erroneous. (vi) The Tribunal allegedly failed to consider whether the deceased suffered from legal insanity at the time of the incident, disregarding relevant circumstances preceding, attending, and following the event. (vii) The appellant contended that the Tribunal ignored evidence regarding ticket purchase. Bishwaram Bag deposed that the deceased had purchased tickets for both himself and the witness at Titlagarh Railway Station, which was uncontroverted, and the Railway Administration did not examine the chief booking supervisor to challenge this evidence. (viii) Section 138(1)(b) of the Railways Act provides that a passenger traveling without a valid ticket is liable for excess fare, but the burden of proof regarding ticketless travel lies on the Railway Administration. No evidence was produced to show that the deceased was not a bona Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 fide passenger, and the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act supports the passenger’s innocence. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4.
Legal Reasoning
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) No journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. (ii) The deceased was reported to be suffering from a mental disorder, and based on the available circumstantial evidence, the death may have resulted from suicide. The statements of the uncle of the deceased, the on-duty Loco Pilot, and the train guard consistently indicated that no untoward incident occurred during the train’s journey. (iii) The uncle of the deceased stated that the deceased frequently moved about due to his mental condition, and the deceased’s younger brother confirmed that his elder brother could have been run over by a train as a consequence of this mental condition. (iv) The investigation, including the inquest and post-mortem, did not support the claim of an untoward railway accident. (v) In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as the death fell within the exceptions (a) to (c) of the section, and the appellant was not entitled to compensation. Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR 5. 6. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, heard the parties, perused the documents on record, and, on the basis of the pleadings, framed five issues for consideration. The Tribunal noted that the inquest and post-mortem reports established that the deceased had suffered haemorrhage, shock, and cerebral compression resulting from injuries sustained on the railway track. The reports further indicated that the deceased had a history of mental disorder and that the place of occurrence was near his residence. Accordingly, the death was attributed to circumstances falling within the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 7. The applicant examined herself as A.W.-1 and her cousin, Bishwaram Bag, as A.W.-2, who claimed to have witnessed the deceased falling from the train and purchasing tickets. However, the Tribunal found A.W.-2’s testimony to be inconsistent, uncorroborated, and of doubtful reliability. In cross-examination, he admitted that he neither pulled the alarm chain nor informed the railway authorities or family members immediately after the incident. His presence during the recovery of the body and subsequent investigation could not be established, raising doubts about the reliability of his testimony. 8. No journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. A.W.-1 had no knowledge of any ticket purchase. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the claim of the deceased traveling as a bona fide passenger was not established. Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 9. R.W.-1, A.K. Majhi, the investigating officer, deposed that the deceased was found lying on the track and that no eyewitnesses confirmed that he had fallen from the train. The on-duty Loco Pilot and train guard reported no untoward incident during the journey. Additionally, the uncle of the deceased stated that the deceased frequently moved about due to mental disorder. The Tribunal observed that the evidence taken suggested that the death may have resulted from suicide or other circumstances not attributable to the Railway Administration. 10. On the basis of the inquest, post-mortem findings, and other circumstantial evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the death did not occur due to an untoward railway accident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Accordingly, the respondent Railway Administration was held to be exempt from liability to pay compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. 11. In view of the foregoing findings, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to any compensation. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 12. 13. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, imposes liability on the Railway Administration to pay compensation for death or injury caused to a passenger or third party arising out of a railway accident. Section 124-A provides for the strict liability of the Railway Administration in the event of untoward railway accidents, subject to specified exceptions. Sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124- A exempt the Railway Administration from liability where the death or Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 injury results from the passenger’s own criminal act, suicide, self- inflicted injury, intoxication, mental incapacity or natural causes. 15. While the Railway Administration’s liability is generally strict, it is not absolute. Exceptions for suicide, self-inflicted injury, or mental incapacity are to be applied only where clearly demonstrated by evidence. 16. Turning to the facts of the present case, on 25.03.2013, the deceased, Bhaja Bag, was traveling in the VSKP-KRBA Express from Titlagarh to Raipur Railway Station and was subsequently found dead near KM No. 190/10-09, between Rahenbhata and Muribahal Railway Stations. GRPS Titlagarh registered UD Case No. 06 of 2013 in connection with the incident. The Railway Administration contested the claim, asserting that the death was either suicidal or a run-over and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 17. The appellant filed the Original Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, examining herself as A.W.1 and her cousin, Bishwaram Bag, as A.W.2. They claimed to have witnessed both the purchase of tickets and the incident itself. In response, the Railway Administration produced R.W.1, A.K. Majhi, the investigating officer, who deposed that the deceased was found lying on the track and that no eyewitness confirmed that he had fallen from the train. The Tribunal also considered statements from the on-duty Loco Pilot, the train guard, and the relatives of the deceased, including his uncle and younger brother, which indicated that the deceased suffered from a history of mental disorder and often moved about unpredictably. Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 18. The Tribunal examined the inquest and post-mortem reports, which revealed that the deceased suffered haemorrhage, shock, and cerebral compression resulting from injuries sustained on the railway track. The reports also highlighted that the place of occurrence was near the deceased’s residence and that he had a documented history of mental disorder. On this basis, the cause of death was attributed to circumstances consistent with suicide or self-inflicted injury as supported by investigative reports. The DRM report further corroborated that the incident likely resulted from the deceased’s own negligent acts arising from his mental condition. 19. The Tribunal scrutinized the testimony of A.W.2, who claimed to have witnessed the purchase of tickets and the incident. On cross- examination, A.W.2 admitted that he neither pulled the alarm chain nor informed railway authorities or family members immediately after the incident. His presence during the recovery of the body and subsequent investigation could not be verified, and his signature was absent from the inquest report. The Tribunal observed that his evidence appeared arranged to support the claim and found it to be inconsistent and unreliable. 20. Regarding the question of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal noted that no journey ticket was recovered and that A.W.1, the mother of the deceased, had no knowledge of any ticket purchase. The Tribunal correctly placed the burden on the applicant to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger under Section 138(1)(b) of the Railways Act. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the affidavit of A.W.2 was insufficient to discharge this burden, and the Tribunal Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 rightly concluded that the claim of bona fide passenger status was not established. 21. Taking into account the totality of evidence, including the statements of R.W.1, the on-duty Loco Pilot, the train guard, and relatives, the Tribunal concluded that the death did not result from an untoward railway accident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Instead, it fell within the exceptions under Section 124-A, arising from the deceased’s own mental condition. The Tribunal’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses, coupled with medical and investigative reports, indicated that the circumstances of death were consistent with suicide or self-inflicted injury. 22. In view of the evidence on record, including inquest and post-mortem reports, statements of the investigating officer, the on-duty Loco Pilot, train guard, and relatives, the Tribunal carefully assessed the credibility of witnesses, applied the law correctly, and evaluated all material facts in a reasoned manner. The circumstances of the deceased’s death, arising from his mental condition, fall within the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A. There is no indication of perversity, non- consideration of relevant evidence, or conclusions unsupported by the record. Appellate interference is therefore unwarranted. VI. CONCLUSION: 23. Having considered the totality of evidence and the findings of the Tribunal, it is evident that the death resulted from circumstances arising from the deceased’s mental condition and falls squarely within the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A. The Tribunal correctly applied the law, assessed the credibility of witnesses, and evaluated the Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 evidence in a reasoned and coherent manner. Accordingly, having regard to the evidence and the Tribunal’s reasoned findings, there exists no legal or factual basis to warrant interference. The appeal is, accordingly, devoid of merit and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 24. 25. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025 Page 10 of 10