Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O No. 248 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987). Ramamani Dei and Anr. …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India, represented through its General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal …. Respondent(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. Mr. D. Pattnayak, Sr. PC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-04.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar,
Legal Reasoning
which dismissed the claim application for compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 (i) On 21.09.2019, the deceased Adhikari Pradhan was travelling from Bolagarh to Khurda Road on the strength of valid journey ticket purchased from Bolagarh Railway Station bearing the No. UYA- 16228331 for travel up to Khurda Road by the Nayagarh–Khurda Passenger Train. (ii) During the course of the journey the compartment was overcrowded, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train at Bolagarh Railway Station, and died on the spot. (iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 87 of 2021 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. (iv) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues for consideration and upon, detailed examination, concluded that the victim is not a bona fide passenger nor victim of any untoward incident. the claim application was accordingly dismissed, though without imposing any cost. (v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed in the Original Application No. 87 of 2021 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Appellants submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside. (ii) The Appellants contended that when several documents issued by the Police clearly establish the death of the deceased on account of the untoward incident, which occurred in the course of the journey and the reporting of the incident was done by the Station Master who further intimate the local police and the case was registered. The DRM Report also reveals that the train itself came to a halt due to the alarm chain being pulled. Without taking judicial notice of these circumstances, the rejection of the claim application on the ground that the death of the deceased could have arisen due to one of the exception to Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989 and the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of any untoward incident, such findings are bad in law, perverse, unsustainable in law and is liable to be struck down. (iii) The Appellants contended that the statements of the Train Guard was recorded during the course of the DRM’s inquiry reveal that the train in 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 question was suddenly halted on account of the Alarm Chain being pulled due to the accidental of the victim in the Bolagarh Railway Station and whereafter the Station Master was also informed. Such evidence clearly establishes negligence on the part of the Railway personnel in properly ascertaining and reporting the true facts of the incident. (iv) The Tribunal, however, erred in attributing the cause of death to be suicidal in nature. Such a finding is based on mere conjecture and is unsustainable in law. The evidence of Appellant No. 2 as AW-2, both in his examination in-chief and cross-examination, unequivocally establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as he witnessed the deceased purchasing a valid journey ticket. He had also seen the deceased accidentally falling down from the running train, which clearly proves the occurrence of the incident. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions: (i) In cases of untoward incidents, the initial burden of establishing the claim lies upon the claimant. In the present matter, the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. From the circumstances surrounding the alleged death, it does not appear to be a case of accidental fall from a running train but indicates a suicidal run over. Such conduct falls within the exceptions contemplated under Section 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Respondents. (ii) The Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of A.W.1, the son of the deceased as well as that of A.W.2, as their statements appeared to be motivated and guided by mala fide intentions with the object of securing compensation, and therefore, could not be relied upon. (iii) The appellants have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. The inquest conducted by LPS, Bolagarh, did not result in the recovery of any journey ticket from the possession of the deceased. It was only at a later stage that one railway ticket was allegedly seized by the ASI, Bolagarh, from the pocket of the deceased. The Respondents have contended that the said ticket was planted with the sole objective of creating a case favourable to the Appellants for the purpose of claiming compensation. In the absence of cogent proof of a bona fide passengership, the mandatory requirement for invoking Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, remains unfulfilled, and consequently, the claim is not maintainable. 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. 6. On Issues 1, 2 and 3, which were taken up together, the Tribunal observed that the initial burden lay upon the applicants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal found that the journey ticket was not found during the inquest made by LPS/Bolagarh. But later on ASI Bolagarh has seized one journey ticket from the pocket of the deceased, which clearly proves that it may have been inserted later on for the purpose of claim only. 7. It is further noted that the statutory investigation report, the statement of train guard, and inquiry findings suggested that there was no injury
Legal Reasoning
except that the body was severed into two pieces. It was argued that the body was found perfectly perpendicular to the track, with both legs aligned straight, which would not be possible in the case of a passenger falling from a running train rather a case of suicidal death. 8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances do not demonstrate the accidental fall from the train, and therefore the occurrence was not an “untoward incident”. such is sine qua non of compensation under Section 124A had not been established. It is accordingly held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that the incident was not an “untoward incident”, and that Railways stood protected under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act. 9. Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed. 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 11. 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 124A of the Railways Act, 1989? and (iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A? 12. This Court observed that once the primary facts, namely, the death of a passenger in an “untoward incident” and such passenger was a bona fide passenger, stood established, the liability of the Railway Administration became absolute. The Court further emphasised that the absence of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration was of no consequence, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act embody the principle of strict liability. 13. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, enacts a regime of strict liability. The provision stipulates that once it is established that the death or injury has occurred as a result of an “untoward incident”, the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, irrespective of any negligence or default on its part, unless the case falls within the specific 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 exceptions craved out in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. 14. On the question of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the production of a ticket and proceeded to hold that it was planted subsequently. This court, however, is the considered view that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, which fact stood established inasmuch as the journey ticket was duly produced by the Appellant. In view of the settled legal position, once the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger is proved, the claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act cannot be denied. Reliance may be placed on Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India1, wherein it was held that the initial burden would be on claimant, which may be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim. It further emphasised that the mere absence of recovery of a ticket at the time of inquest cannot, by itself, be a ground to negate the claim of bona fide passengership. 15. Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi2, wherein it was held that Section 124A of the Railways Act provides for payment of compensation whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the Railway Administration in the case of an accident in case ‘untoward incident’. 1 (2024) 8SCR 391 2 (2019) 3 SCC 572 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 16. In the present case, the applicants produced the valid journey ticket, Inquest Report, Post mortem report and final report, all of which record that the deceased died on account of accidental fall from a running train. Further, AW-2 categorically deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket, which fact stood duly corroborated during evidence. These are the direct testimonies of co-passengers, duly supported by contemporaneous police and medical records. The Respondents, on the other hand, failed to adduce any cogent material to rebut such evidence, and sought instead to rely upon speculative observations made in the DRM’s inquiry. 17. Upon weighing the evidence on record, the Court finds that the applicants have adduced sufficient material to establish that the deceased was travelling on a valid journey ticket and that he accidentally fell from the train at Bolagarh Railway Station. Such an occurrence clearly falls within the ambit of “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) and does not dislodge the claim within the framework of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. This position was firmly settled in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar3, wherein it was held that the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and must, therefore, be accorded a liberal and purposive interpretation. The Court observed that adopting a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers under Section-123(c) of the Railways 3 (2008) 9 SCC 527 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 Act would defeat the object of the legislation and unjustly deprive a large number of bona fide railway passengers of their rightful claim to compensation in railway accidents. Accordingly, the incident falls squarely within the definition of an “untoward incident” and none of the statutory exceptions to liability are attracted. Accordingly, the claim is maintainable. VI. CONCLUSION: 18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the appellants have established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. None of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A are attracted. 19. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 87 of 2021 is set aside. 20. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 21. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs 8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakhs) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law. 10 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:17:06 (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 10th Sept.,2025/ 11