Orissa High Court
Ramesh Behera & Anr vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O. No. 74 of 2025
(From the judgment dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in OA No.39 of 2022
Ramesh Behera & Anr. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Suven Kumar Pani, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Milan Kumar, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:- 04.04.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the
judgment dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in OA No.39 of 2022.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The deceased, Santosh Behera, was employed as a labourer in Surat.
(ii) On 30.08.2019, he commenced a journey by train from Surat Railway
Station to Bhubaneswar Railway Station.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) During the course of the journey, on 01.09.2019, the deceased
accidentally fell from the train at KM No. 82/5-6, between Rairakhoi
and Bamur Railway Stations, near the railway track falling within the
jurisdiction of Kishore Nagar Police Station, Angul, and sustained
grievous injuries.
(iv) Following the incident, the deceased was immediately transported to
the nearest hospital by the 108 Ambulance Service. However, despite
receiving medical treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.
(v) Subsequently, the parents and the wife of the deceased filed two
separate claim petitions before the Railway Claims Tribunal. In their
petition, the parents stated that the deceased was travelling on the
Ahmedabad-Puri train, whereas the wife, in her separate petition,
asserted that he was travelling on the Ajmer-Puri train.
(vi) The matter was heard on 24.06.2024 in the presence of both parties.
Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward
incident.
(vii) Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the
awarded compensation amount of ₹8,00,000/- along with simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, calculated from the date of
condonation of delay until the date of payment, with the Registry of
the Bench, within 30 days.
(viii) The Tribunal apportioned the awarded compensation among the
applicants as follows: Smt. Laxmi Behera, the wife of the deceased,
was awarded ₹5,00,000/-; Smt. Khusi Behera, the daughter of the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
deceased, was awarded ₹1,00,000/-; Sri Ramesh Behera, the father of
the deceased, was awarded ₹1,00,000/-; and Smt. Kumari Behera, the
mother of the deceased, was awarded ₹1,00,000/-.
(ix) Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision to grant the major portion of the
compensation to Smt. Laxmi Behera, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal. It is their contention that Smt. Laxmi Behera filed a
false affidavit and submitted incorrect information concerning the
circumstances of the incident. Accordingly, the appellants seek the
intervention of this Hon'ble Court to set aside or suitably modify the
impugned judgment, ensuring a just and equitable distribution of the
compensation amount.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants Mr. Suven Kumar Pani earnestly
made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Smt. Laxmi Behera, wife of the deceased, stated in her Original
Application, Affidavit Evidence, as well as during her cross-
examination on 27.06.2023 by the respondent, that the deceased was
travelling on the Ajmer-Puri train. This statement is demonstrably
false and stands in stark contrast to the consistent version put forth by
the deceased's parents, who correctly maintained that he was
travelling on the Ahmedabad-Puri Express.
(ii) It is relevant to note that the DRM Report submitted by the
respondent Railway has categorically refuted the claim pertaining to
the Ajmer-Puri train. The report asserts that, at the time of the
incident, the Ajmer-Puri train was stationed at Surat, whereas the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
incident occurred near Rairakhol, Odisha. This contradiction
establishes that it is physically impossible for the same train to be
present at two distinct locations simultaneously, thereby lending
credence to the appellants' version.
(iii) In light of Section 148 of the Railways Act, 1989which prescribes
penalties for making false statements in applications for
compensation, it is submitted that Smt. Laxmi Behera ought to be
proceeded against under the said provision for having willfully
furnished false information regarding the train involved in the
incident.
(iv) In her Examination-in-Chief, Smt. Laxmi Behera alleged that her
father-in-law and mother-in-law have failed to take care of her and
her child. This claim is false, as she has never resided with her in-laws
since the inception of her marriage.
(v) The parents of the deceased presently reside alone, are financially
destitute, and suffer from ill health. Further, their dependent son is an
asthmatic and incapable of undertaking gainful employment. Despite
these compelling considerations, the learned Tribunal overlooked
their circumstances and awarded the major portion of the
compensation to the wife of the deceased, who is in comparatively
better condition.
(vi) It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the
judgment dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in OA (HU) No. 39/2022.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(vii) It is further prayed that the matter be remitted to the learned Tribunal
for fresh adjudication, particularly to determine whether the train
involved was the Ajmer-Puri or Ahmedabad-Puri Express.
(viii) Additionally, it is prayed that the awarded compensation be
distributed equitably among all legal heirs of the deceased, keeping in
view their financial conditions, dependency, and overall well-being.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent Mr. Milan Kumar
earnestly made the following submissions in support of his
contentions:
(i) The submissions made by the appellants are not tenable. The
Tribunal, upon a comprehensive review of the pleadings, evidence,
and statutory reports, arrived at a well-reasoned and just conclusion.
Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted.
(ii) The allegation that Smt. Laxmi Behera filed a false affidavit is strongly
denied. The appeal appears to be a veiled attempt by the appellants to
advance personal motives. The appellants had sufficient opportunity
to raise such objections during the pendency of proceedings before the
Tribunal. Their failure to do so at the relevant time indicates that these
allegations are mere afterthoughts and lack bona fides.
(iii) There exist no statutory guidelines prescribing a fixed formula for the
apportionment of compensation among claimants. Rule 44 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 vests the Tribunal
with inherent powers to pass such orders as may be necessary to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process. Exercising
such discretion judiciously, the Tribunal rightly awarded the major
share of the compensation to the wife of the deceased, considering the
overall circumstances of the parties. This decision is both legally
sound and equitable.
(iv) The appellants' prayer for a retrial is devoid of any cogent justification
and is therefore not maintainable. The East Coast Railway has already
complied with the Tribunal's directions by depositing the awarded
compensation amount along with accrued interest, totalling
₹9,37,721/-, before the Tribunal. The present appeal is evidently rooted
in an intra-family dispute, with no contributory fault or procedural
lapse attributable to the respondent.
(v) The Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in accordance with the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, as
amended in 2016, which enhanced the amount payable in case of
death to ₹8,00,000/-. The addition of simple interest at the rate of 9%
per annum, from the date of condonation of delay till the date of
actual payment, is within the bounds of law and judicial precedents.
(vi) The appellants' contention challenging the identity of the train
involved in the incident is without merit. The deceased was recovered
from within the railway premises, and the core facts of the case being
that he died due to an untoward incident while travelling as a bona
fide passenger remain unaltered.
(vii) Furthermore, under the statutory scheme, the compensation for death
is fixed, irrespective of the specific train, provided the criteria under
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 are met. Therefore, the
prayer for reconsideration on this ground is legally unsustainable.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR:
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, after reviewing the
pleadings, evidence, and hearing arguments from both parties, made
the following findings:
(i) The Tribunal held that, based on the circumstantial and documentary
evidence on record, along with the express admission made by the
Respondent, the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the
incident.
(ii) It further found that the deceased died as a result of an accidental fall
from a running train, and such an occurrence qualifies as an untoward
incident within the meaning of Section 123 clause (c) sub-clause (2) of
the Railways Act 1989. Accordingly, the Railway Administration was
held liable to pay compensation to the applicants under Section 124A
of the said Act.
(iii) The Tribunal also concluded that the applicants, being the wife, minor
daughter, and parents of the deceased, fall within the definition of
dependents under Section 123 clause (b) of the Railways Act 1989. As
such, they were held entitled to receive compensation of rupees eight
lakh in accordance with Part I of the Schedule appended to Rule 3
sub-rule (3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules 1990, along with simple interest at the rate of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
nine percent per annum from the date of condonation of delay,
namely 10 August 2022, until the date of actual payment.
(iv) The Tribunal directed that the awarded amount be distributed in
thefollowing manner: Rupees five lakh to Smt. Laxmi Behera, the wife
of the deceased; Rupees one lakh to Khusi Behera, the minor daughter
of the deceased; Rupees one lakh to Sri Ramesh Behera, the father of
the deceased; and Rupees one lakh to Smt. Kumari Behera, the mother
of the deceased, making a total of Rupees eight lakh. The
disbursement was to be carried out in accordance with the broad
principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Geeta
Devi v. Union of India1.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the
documents placed before this Court.
7. The legal position concerning untoward incidents in railway premises
is well settled.
8. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 encapsulates the doctrine of
strict or no-fault liability, whereby the Railway Administration is
statutorily obligated to compensate victims of certain specified
incidentsirrespective of any contributory negligence or fault
attributable to the injured or deceased passenger.
9. Notably, the provision operates independent of fault, and liability
attaches upon mere proof of the occurrence of an "untoward incident"
as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
FAO 22/2015 & CM APPLN. 4501/2015.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
10. The word "passenger" under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989,
refers to a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Furthermore,
the Explanation to Section 124A expands this definition to include
railway servants on duty and individuals who possess a valid
platform ticket and become victims of untoward incidents.
11. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar2, has clarified the scope of Section 124A Railways Act, 1989,
observing that the provision is strict and does not depend on the fault
or negligence of the passenger.The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced hereunder: -
"11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be
given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers", the first being that it
only applies when a person has actually got inside the train
and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second
being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to
board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since
the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should
receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow
and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the
abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which
advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose
should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of
India [(2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC para
9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC
(L&S) 131] (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of
India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S)
121]"
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
12. In the same vein, in Jameela v. Union of India3, the Supreme Court
reiterated that where the principle of strict liability applies, as under
Section 124A of the Railways Act, proof of negligence is not a
prerequisite for entitlement to compensation.
13. In the present case, the findings of the Tribunal have established that
the deceased was a bona fide passenger who fell from a running train
and succumbed to injuries, an event squarely falling within the
definition of an "untoward incident" under the Act. There is no
material to suggest criminal negligence or any of the statutory
exceptions that would absolve the Railways of liability.
14. The grievance of the appellants, however, pertains not to the
awarding of compensation per se, but to the apportionment thereof.
They contend that the major share awarded to the deceased's wife is
unjust, particularly in view of alleged contradictions in her testimony
and the appellants' own financial vulnerability.
15. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that there exists no codified
statutory framework prescribing the precise manner in which
compensation is to be apportioned among multiple dependents.
However, Rule 44 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,
1989, vests the Tribunal with broad discretionary powers to make
such orders as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice or to
prevent abuse of its process.
16. In the exercise of such discretion, the Tribunal appears to have duly
taken into account the respective financial and personal circumstances
(2010) 12 SCC 443.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
of the claimants while determining the apportionment of
compensation.
17. In her deposition, the wife of the deceased deposed that the
deceased's parents reside with their other sons, who are financially
capable of supporting them. She further asserted that following her
husband's demise, she has been left to fend for herself and their minor
daughter without any assistance from her in-laws, and continues to
live in a state of financial and emotional hardship. The appellants, for
their part, have refuted these claims, alleging that she never resided
with them and that she misrepresented material facts pertaining to the
incident. However, these conflicting narratives fall squarely within
the domain of intra-family discord. Significantly, no cogent material
has been brought on record to establish that the Tribunal's findings
suffer from perversity or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference
by this Court.
18. In the absence of any compelling or substantiated ground for
interference, this Court is of the considered view that the discretion
exercised by the Tribunal in the apportionment of compensation does
not warrant judicial review under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987.
19. It is also noted that the directions issued by the Tribunal have already
been duly complied with, and the compensation amount stands
deposited before the appropriate forum.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
VI. CONCLUSION:
20. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present appeal.
21. The judgment dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 39 of 2022 does not suffer
from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
22. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th April, 2025/
