[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sukanti Behera And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 December, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Dec-2025 16:47:02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No. 654 of 2020

(In the matter of an Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987).

Sukanti Behera and Ors .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India and Ors. .... Respondent (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Behera, Adv.

For Respondent (s) : Mr. Biswajit Moharana, Sr.P.C.

CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-27.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the

dismissal of OA No. 153 of 2016 vide judgment/ order dated 07.11.2019 by

the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, recognise the

death as an untoward incident involving a bona fide passenger, and

consequently award statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with

interest.

I.    FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

 2.   The brief facts of the case are as follows:













(i)     The present appeal arises from the dismissal of OA No. 153 of 2016 by the

Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, concerning the death of Simanchal

Behera on 13.04.2009 at or near Vani Vihar Railway Station, Bhubaneswar.

The deceased was the husband of appellant one, father of appellants two to

four, and son of appellant five.

(ii) According to the claim petition, the deceased had boarded the Puri

Sambalpur Intercity Express bearing Train No. 8304 between 5.30 p.m. and

6.00 p.m., and allegedly fell from the train due to a sudden movement and

passenger pressure while climbing into the coach. The Railway

administration, in its written statement and DRM report, denied the

occurrence of any such fall and stated that the deceased died due to coming

into contact with a running train.

(iii) After the incident, the deceased was taken to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar,

where post mortem was conducted on 14.04.2009. GRP Police registered UD

GR Case No. 198 of 2009, investigated the matter, and submitted a final

report before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar recording the death. Railway

memos generated contemporaneously recorded that an unidentified male

had dashed against Train No. 8304 and was found dead at Vani Vihar

platform near the booking office.

(iv) The legal heirs filed the claim application in 2015. The Tribunal framed issues

pertaining to the nature of the incident, bona fide passenger status, statutory

protection under Section 124A of the Railways Act, dependency, and

entitlement to compensation.

(v) Appellant one was examined as AW1 and described the occurrence as an

accidental fall. She was not an eyewitness. AW2, examined as an eyewitness,

stated that he saw the deceased purchase a ticket and fall, and later produced

a ticket said to be from the date of the incident. Railway records indicated

that no ticket or travel authority was recovered from the deceased at the time

of the incident. The Tribunal observed inconsistencies in AW2's evidence,

including the route and timing of the ticket produced and the delay of nearly

ten years in producing it.

(vi) Certified copies of the police final report, zimanama, and post mortem report

were exhibited by the applicants. The respondents examined RW1, an

inquiry officer, who stated that no records concerning the incident were

available due to destruction of old files and admitted that he had no personal

knowledge of the incident.

(vii) The Tribunal, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, held that the

applicants had not proved either the deceased's status as a bona fide

passenger or the occurrence of an untoward incident within the meaning of

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and dismissed the claim.

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 appellants contend that the cumulative oral and documentary evidence

establishes without contradiction that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger who died due to an untoward incident as defined under the

Railways Act.

(ii) They assert that the testimony of AW1 and AW2, both unshaken in cross

examination, provides a coherent narrative of the accidental fall during

boarding when the train started moving abruptly, demonstrating negligence

on the part of the train authorities.

(iii) They emphasise that the Railway's denial is unsupported by any

contemporaneous material, particularly since the DRM report and Station

Manager's responses admit the absence of records due to destruction of old

files, and RW1, the sole defence witness, lacked both documents and

personal knowledge.

(iv) The appellants contend that the exhibited police papers, including the final

report and post mortem report, corroborate the accidental nature of the death

and were accepted by the Tribunal but not weighed properly in the

impugned dismissal order.

(v) They submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the burden on the

claimants in accidental fall cases is not to establish negligence but only to

establish the occurrence of an untoward incident and deceased's bona fide

passenger status, both of which stand proved.

(vi) They argue that in the absence of contrary material and in light of consistent

evidence supporting accidental fall, the dismissal of the claim is

unsustainable and the appeal deserves to be allowed with a direction to grant

statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The respondent argues that the appeal deserves outright dismissal because

the Tribunal's dismissal is well-reasoned, legally sound, and supported by

documentary evidence. It contends that the applicants failed to prove either

bona fide passenger status or an untoward incident as required under

Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A, thereby excluding liability.

(ii) The respondent maintains that AW2's testimony is wholly unreliable due to

internal contradictions, a decade-long delay in producing a ticket, mismatch

between the ticket produced and the alleged journey of the deceased, and the

improbability of preserving such a ticket for ten years. The Tribunal's

adverse finding on AW2's credibility is argued to be unassailable and central

to rejecting the appellants' case.

(iii) The respondent asserts that non-recovery of a ticket from the deceased is

fatal to the case, and the presumption of bona fide passenger status cannot

arise in absence of any travel authority. All railway records consistently

show death due to run over and not due to a fall, and the respondent

contends that these entries must prevail since the appellants produced no

evidence to rebut them.

(iv) The respondent argues that the incident falls squarely within the

exclusionary clause of Section 124A, being a case of self-inflicted injury or

negligence by the deceased. It maintains that the Tribunal correctly applied

the statutory protection available to the Railway Administration and rightly

held that no liability attaches.

(v) The respondent concludes that the appellants failed to discharge the burden

of proving the essential jurisdictional facts for compensation, and therefore

the decision of the Tribunal requires no interference. It submits that the

appeal should be dismissed with costs as the Railway Administration is not

responsible for paying any compensation.

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. The Railway Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, and statutory provisions, recorded the following finding:

(i) The Tribunal treated the core dispute as turning on two foundational

requirements under Section 124A of the Railways Act, namely proof of an

untoward incident and proof of bona fide passenger status. It held that both

elements failed due to evidentiary deficiencies, thereby foreclosing

compensation regardless of any sympathetic circumstances surrounding the

death.

(ii) The Tribunal disbelieved the narrative of accidental fall primarily because

AW2's testimony was internally inconsistent, materially delayed, and

unsupported by any contemporaneous record. The Tribunal emphasised that

AW2's claim of witnessing the deceased purchase a ticket, his production of a

ticket nearly ten years later, and the mismatch between the ticket route and

the claimed journey rendered his presence and his testimony unreliable.

(iii) The Tribunal placed substantial weight on the absence of any journey ticket

recovered from the deceased during physical search, treating it as a decisive

indicator against bona fide passenger status. This was reinforced by railway

records which uniformly recorded non-recovery of any travel authority and

categorised the event as a run-over or dash with the locomotive rather than a

fall from a moving train.

(iv) The Tribunal relied heavily on railway records, including the memo of the

Deputy Station Superintendent and the DRM report, treating them as reliable

entries made in normal course of business under Section 199 of the Railways

Act. These records described the incident as a case where the deceased

dashed against the train and was found dead on the platform, thereby

supporting a theory of self-inflicted injury or negligence rather than an

untoward incident.

(v) The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to produce any primary or

corroborative material demonstrating a fall from a train, and that the

evidentiary standard required to displace official railway records had not

been met. As a result, it held that the incident fell within the exclusionary

clause of Section 124A, since death due to self-inflicted injury or negligence is

not compensable as an untoward incident.

(vi) Based on these findings, the Tribunal decisively ruled that issues relating to

dependency or quantum of compensation did not arise, since the

foundational jurisdictional facts for liability were unproved. It accordingly

dismissed the claim application, directing that parties bear their own costs,

and reaffirmed that the Railway administration was protected under Section

124A's exemption framework.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the

documents placed before this Court.

7. The accident in question occurred on 13.04.2009 at Vani Vihar Station when

the deceased, Simanchal Behera, allegedly fell while boarding the Puri-

Sambalpur Intercity Express (Train No. 8304). The appellants maintain that a

sudden jerk of the moving train caused him to lose balance, and they rely on

an eyewitness and supporting documents. The Railway Claims Tribunal,

however, dismissed the claim on the ground that Simanchal was not shown

to be a bona fide passenger and that no "untoward incident" had occurred.

This Court must decide whether, on the evidence and law, the Railway owes

compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

8. Section 124A provides strict (no-fault) liability for all "untoward incidents"

occurring during railway operation. Clause (c)(2) of Section 123 specifically

defines an untoward incident to include "the accidental falling of any

passenger from a train carrying passengers." Thus if Simanchal was boarding

the train and fell accidentally, Section 124A is triggered. This is so regardless

of any negligence on his part.

9. As emphasized by multiple precedents, compensation under Section 124/124-

A is payable whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or fault.

For instance, in Jameela v. Union of India1 the Supreme Court held that even

if a passenger's fall was caused by his own negligent act like standing in an

open doorway, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under

section 124A. The relevant excerpts are produced below:

"There is admittedly no eyewitness of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under section 124 A of the Act."

10. Here, no case of suicide, self-inflicted injury or criminal act is made out. The

evidence (e.g. injury pattern and eyewitness testimony) supports the

conclusion that Simanchal's fall was accidental. Thus the incident qualifies as

an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2). In such an event, the

AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3705

statutory presumption of no-fault liability applies to benefit the victim. No

contrary statutory exception is invoked by the Railway.

11. A threshold issue under Section 124A is whether the victim was a

"passenger" at the time of the accident. The Act (Explanation (ii) to Section

124A) defines a passenger to include a person who has purchased a valid

ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid

platform ticket, and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. The

appellants have discharged the initial burden by presenting credible

evidence that Simanchal held himself out as a traveler: the wife's affidavit

and the eyewitness account establish that he attempted to board the Intercity

Express at Vanivihar. If available, they also placed on record official

documents (e.g. a DRM note or police cover letter) indicating the purchase of

a ticket for that train.

12. In the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi2, it was held that once the claimant

lays a prima facie foundation that the deceased was on a scheduled trip, the

evidentiary burden shifts to the Railway to show otherwise. The Railway

produced no direct rebuttal: no recovered ticket or surveillance record, no

testimony of the relevant booking clerk, etc. In the absence of such proof, the

presumption of bona fide travel must prevail. Mere non-recovery of the

ticket is not fatal.

13. The totality of circumstances, namely the consistent eyewitness testimony of

a "sudden jerk" and the supporting documents, satisfies this Court on the

preponderance of probabilities that Simanchal was in the course of a journey

AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2362

on that train. In short, the appellants have established that he was a bona fide

passenger at the relevant time, as required by Section 124A.

14. The Tribunal's reliance on technical defects like no formal seizure memo of

the ticket, non-examination of the investigating officer, etc., was misplaced.

Multiple precedents have repeatedly held that procedural gaps cannot defeat

the welfare purpose of the Act. Once the claimants have shown (by credible

material) possession/issuance of a valid ticket and occurrence of an accidental

fall, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel applies and shifts the onus

onto the Railways.

15. The Railways, as a government instrumentality, may not throw up minor

irregularities as a bar. As the Supreme Court explained in the case of Rajni v.

Union of India3 technical lapses should not be elevated to stringent proof

requirements: a formal seizure memo or intact physical evidence is not

indispensable if the circumstances otherwise support the claimant's case. The

relevant excerpts are produced below:

"In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the High Court had faulted in affirming the finding of the Railways Claims Tribunal whereunder the claimants petition had been rejected for non- production of a seizure memo of the ticket and for non-examination of the investigating officer, which is and was the main thrust of argument canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways. This reasoning ignores the consistent judicial line that the absence of formal seizure or witness examination does not, by itself, negate bonafide travel when other material evidence substantiate the claim. Mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989. Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with liability of railway administration for death and injury to

2025 INSC 1201

passenger due to accident. A Hyper technical approach which would frustrate the object of providing relief to victims of railway accidents should be eschewed. The insistence on a formal seizure memo would amount to importing standard of proof which normally is sought for in a criminal trial."

16. Here, apart from the absence of a recovered ticket, there is no evidence that

the claimants' case is false. The photocopy of a ticket bearing the correct date

and train (tendered by the appellants) was prima facie verified by the DRM

in other proceedings. In any event, the appellants met the low threshold of

proof, and the railway failed to meet its shifted burden of showing Simanchal

was not traveling.

17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. This Court finds that the deceased's fall

was an "untoward incident" within Section 123(c)(2) and that he was a bona

fide passenger under Section 124A. On the totality of evidence and in light of

the guiding precedents the impugned findings are contrary to law. The

appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal (and the

order of the High Court) is set aside, and the claim petition is restored for