[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... vs Union Of India 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 15:04:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 107 of 2019
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987.)
Tanu Senapati & Ors. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Biswajit Moharana, Sr.P.C.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-26.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The instant First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the Appellants
assailing the award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.40 of 2017.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) The case of the Appellants, as narrated before the learned
Tribunal, was that on 19.03.2016, while the deceased Judhistira
Senapati was travelling as a bona fide passenger on the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
strength of a valid general class ticket bearing No. 05493186
dated 19.03.2016 from Nirakarpur to Bhubaneswar in an
overcrowded compartment of the 1st DMU train, he
accidentally fell between Nirakarpur and Tapang Railway
Stations owing to the oscillation and violent jerk of the moving
train and succumbed to his injuries on the spot.
(b) Based on the report of the SM/Tapang Railway Station, the
G.R.P., Nirakarpur registered U.D. Case No. 09 of 2016 and
undertook investigation into the matter.
(c) Asserting that the occurrence constituted an untoward
incident, the applicants, who are the wife and children of the
deceased and are the present Appellants, approached the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench seeking
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Railway
Administration.
(d) On receipt of notice, the Respondent entered appearance and
filed its written statement. In the written statement, the
Respondent denied the averments made in the claim
application and asserted that the case was one of suicide,
alleging that the deceased was run over and killed while
trespassing on the railway track of the DN line at KM No.
480/22-24. On such pleadings, the Respondent prayed for
dismissal of the claim.
(e) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed five issues for determination.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(f) In support of their case, the Appellants examined two
witnesses and produced documents such as the inquest report,
post-mortem report, dead-body challan, train journey ticket
and the certified copy of the statement of the witness. The
Respondent did not examine any witness and relied solely on
the DRM report.
(g) The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the parties and
considering the evidence on record, held that the deceased was
neither a bona fide passenger nor did the occurrence fall
within the ambit of an 'untoward incident'. Accordingly, the
claim application was dismissed.
(h) Aggrieved by the award dated 12.12.2018 passed in O.A. No.
40 of 2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal.
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 contended that the impugned award passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal is illegal and liable to be
set aside, as the findings recorded therein are against the
weight of evidence on record.
ii. It was submitted that the journey ticket of the deceased was
produced before the Tribunal and was not disputed by the
Railway. Therefore, the finding that the deceased was not a
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
bona fide passenger is unsupported by the record,
unsustainable, and liable to be set aside.
iii. It was further submitted that the dead body of the deceased
was found on the railway track and was first noticed by the
guard of the train, who issued a memo to the Station Master,
Tapang. The Station Master thereafter lodged a written report
before the G.R.P., Nirakarpur, on the basis of which U.D. Case
No. 9 of 2016 was registered. During enquiry, an inquest was
conducted wherein it was opined that the cause of death might
be due to being run over by a train. The subsequent post-
mortem examination confirmed the inquest opinion, and a final
report was submitted upon completion of investigation.
iv. The Appellants relied on the evidence of A.W.2, an eyewitness,
who in his chief examination stated that he had seen the
deceased purchase the ticket and board the train, though this
aspect was inadvertently not recorded in the cross-
examination. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal
misread the evidence of A.W.2 and, relying on such
inadvertent omission, rejected the claim, which is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
v. The Appellants submitted that the Railway had taken the plea
that the deceased committed suicide by trespassing on the
railway track and was run over by a train. However, this plea
was not proved by any oral evidence nor supported by the
records, except for the observation in the final report.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
vi. It was asserted that it is improbable for a person holding a
valid journey ticket from Nirakarpur to Bhubaneswar to
commit suicide at the very railway station itself, particularly
when the body was found near the station.
vii. The Appellants submitted that it is well settled that the onus
lies on the Railway to establish the applicability of the proviso
to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and since the Railway
failed to discharge this burden, the finding of suicide recorded
by the Tribunal is untenable and liable to be set aside.
viii. The Appellants submitted that all the material on record clearly
establishes that the incident amounted to an untoward incident
and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The finding
of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger, despite the valid journey ticket filed before it, is
perverse, unsustainable, and liable to be set aside.
ix. The Appellants further submitted that the burden lies on the
Railway to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger and does not rest on the claimants. It was contended
that the learned Tribunal committed a gross error of law in
holding that the claimants had failed to prove bona fide travel.
Such a finding, it was submitted, is unsustainable and liable to
be set aside.
x. The Appellants submitted that 'untoward incident' does not
require proof of negligence on the part of the Railway, except
in situations covered under the proviso to Section 124-A, such
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
as suicide, self-inflicted injury, or acts constituting criminal
offences. Except for these prohibited acts, whenever an
untoward incident occurs in the course of travel, the Railway is
liable to pay compensation for injury or death. It was asserted
that the burden lies on the Railway to prove that the occurrence
does not amount to an untoward incident. In the present case,
the Railway has failed to discharge this burden. The learned
Tribunal, despite the availability of sufficient material to
establish that the incident was an untoward incident, has
illegally rejected the claim.
xi. It was further submitted that once a passenger sustains injuries
or dies while travelling by train, the Railway's liability under
Section 124-A arises unless the circumstances under the
proviso are specifically pleaded and proved. In the absence of
such pleading and proof, the statutory liability to pay
compensation subsists. Section 124-A, being a welfare-oriented
and beneficial provision, warrants liberal construction.
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 denied the allegation of accidental fall and
asserted that the case was one of suicide, contending that the
deceased was run over and killed while trespassing on the
railway track on the DN line at KM No. 480/22-24.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
ii. It was submitted that the plea of the applicants that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger was false.
iii. The Respondent relied on the DRM's investigation report, the
memo of the SM/Nirakarpur, and the final report of the police.
It was stated that the statutory investigation revealed that the
Station Master, Nirakarpur, reported the incident as a case of
trespassing and run-over. The Loco Pilot of train No. 78502
PSA-PRDP DMU had also stated that one male person was run
over and killed while trespassing on the track at KM No.
480/22-24, and both the guard and the Loco Pilot had issued a
memo to the Station Master, Tapang. Based on this material,
the Respondent contended that the death was suicidal in
nature and fell within the proviso to Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, and therefore no compensation was payable.
iv. It was asserted that the quantum of compensation claimed was
baseless and without legal foundation, and that in view of the
suicidal run-over established through the statutory enquiry,
the Respondent was not liable to pay any compensation under
the Railways Act, 1989.
v. It was submitted that the Tribunal rightly concluded that the
death of the deceased was not the result of any untoward
incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. It found the
testimony of A.W.2 unreliable in view of the contradictions
between his affidavit and his earlier police statement, and
noted that the statutory enquiry, including the statements of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the Station Master, Loco Pilot and Guard, consistently
established a case of suicidal run-over while trespassing. The
Tribunal further rightly held that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger and, consequently, the applicants were not
entitled to compensation under Section 124-A. There is no
reason to interfere with these findings.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR:
5. The Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, after
hearing the parties and considering their respective pleadings,
framed the following issues for determination:
i. Whether the death of the deceased was due to any
untoward incident as defined under Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
ii. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide
passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of
the untoward incident?
iii. Whether the applicant was entitled to get
compensation under Section 124-A of Railways
Act, 1989?
iv. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of
the deceased to receive the compensation as
claimed?
v. To what relief the applicants are entitled to?
6. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal
noted that A.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the incident and that her
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
deposition was based on hearsay. With regard to A.W.2, the Tribunal
observed material inconsistencies between his affidavit and the
statement recorded during the police enquiry, including his own
admission in cross-examination that he had not seen the deceased
boarding the train. The Tribunal therefore found this witness
unreliable for establishing the applicants' version of the incident.
7. The Tribunal further observed that the statutory materials placed by
the Respondent, namely the DRM's investigation report, the
statements of the Station Master, the Loco Pilot and the on-duty
Guard, as well as the final report accepted by the Magistrate,
consistently recorded that the deceased was run over while
trespassing on the DN line at KM No. 480/22-24. These materials also
reflected the conclusion that the incident was a case of suicidal run-
over. The Tribunal noted that these findings had not been challenged
by the applicants.
8. In view of the above, the Tribunal held that the incident did not fall
within the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)
of the Railways Act and that the deceased was not travelling as a
bona fide passenger at the relevant time. Consequently, the Tribunal
concluded that the claim did not attract Section 124-A of the Act. The
Original Application was accordingly dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
10. The principal issue in the present appeal is whether the learned
Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger and in concluding that the death did not arise out of an
'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
11. To examine these issues, it is necessary to refer to the statutory
framework governing compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
12. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines an 'untoward
incident' to include, inter alia, the accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers. The provision reads as follows:
"123. (c) "untoward incident" means--
(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the
meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission
of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson,
by any person in or on any train carrying passengers,
or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or
booking office or on any platform or in any other
place within the precincts of a railway station; or
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from
a train carrying passengers." (emphasis supplied)
13. It is trite that the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a regime of strict
liability in cases of death or injury arising out of an untoward
incident. Once the occurrence of such an incident is established, the
Railway Administration is statutorily bound to pay compensation,
irrespective of any negligence or default on its part, unless the case
falls within one of the exceptions specified in the proviso to Section
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
124-A. The relevant provision is extracted hereinbelow for ready
reference:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward
incidents.--When in the course of working a railway
an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not
there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on
the part of the railway administration such as would
entitle a passenger who has been injured or the
dependant of a passenger who has been killed to
maintain an action and recover damages in respect
thereof, the railway administration shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as
may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss
occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as
a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under
this section by the railway administration if the
passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication
or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical
treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary
due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"passenger" includes--
a railway servant on duty; and
a person who has purchased a valid ticket for
travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an
untoward incident."
14. In this backdrop, it is pertinent to note that the Railways Act, 1989 is
a beneficial legislation intended to secure timely relief to victims of
railway accidents and their dependants. The provisions under
Sections 123(c) and 124-A must therefore be construed in a manner
that advances the object of the statute rather than defeats it.
15. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran
Vijaya Kumar1 held that the expression "accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) cannot
be construed narrowly. The relevant observation reads as under:
"14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning
to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of
the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large
number of railway passengers from getting
compensation in railway accidents. It is well known
that in our country there are crores of people who
travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford
travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a
restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we
will be depriving a large number of victims of train
accidents (particularly poor and middle class people)
from getting compensation under the Railways Act.
Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental
falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide
passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid
ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train
and falls down during the process. In other words, a
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
purposive, and not literal interpretation should be
given to the expression."
16. The legal position is equally well settled that mere non-recovery of a
journey ticket is not sufficient to deny the status of a bona fide
passenger, nor does the burden of proof remain indefinitely with the
claimants.
17. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi2 clarified that the
mere absence of a journey ticket does not, by itself, disprove bona
fide travel. It was held that the claimant carries the initial burden,
which may be discharged by placing the basic facts on affidavit,
whereafter the Railway must rebut the claim by producing material
to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the
case falls within an exception under the proviso to Section 124-A. It
was observed:
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on
the railway premises will not be conclusive to
hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide
passenger for which claim for compensation could
be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket
with such injured or deceased will not negative
the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Initial burden will be on the claimant which can
be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant
facts and burden will then shift on the Railways
and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or
the attending circumstances. This will have to be
dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts
found. The legal position in this regard will stand
explained accordingly."
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
18. In light of the aforesaid legal position, it becomes necessary to
examine whether the appellants established that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger and whether the Railway succeeded in bringing
the case within any of the exceptions carved out in the proviso to
Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
19. As regards bona fide travel, the claimants relied on the journey ticket
bearing No. 05493186 dated 19.03.2016, stated to have been recovered
from the person of the deceased. The said ticket was brought on
record without objection and has not been demonstrated to be forged
or fabricated. When considered with the pleadings and the material
on record indicating that the deceased had purchased the ticket and
boarded the 1st DMU from Nirakarpur to Bhubaneswar, this material
was sufficient to discharge the initial burden resting on the
appellants. From that stage, the evidentiary burden shifted to the
Railway to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
20. The Railway, however, did not examine the Station Master, the Loco
Pilot, the Guard or any other witness having direct knowledge of the
occurrence. Its defence rested entirely on the DRM's enquiry report,
the memo of the Station Master and the police reports. While such
documents are relevant, they do not, in the absence of examination of
the persons who prepared them or any other competent witness,
attain the character of substantive evidence. The learned Tribunal
was, therefore, in error in treating these reports as conclusive, while
at the same time overlooking the oral evidence led on behalf of the
appellants.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
21. Even if the enquiry reports are taken into account, they do not
furnish strict proof of suicide or criminal trespass. There is no
eyewitness account to suggest that the deceased deliberately came on
to the track or attempted self-harm. The conclusion that the case was
one of suicidal run over appears to rest primarily on the location of
the body on the DN line and on statements recorded during the
enquiry.
22. A finding that the death falls within any of the exceptions to Section
124-A must be supported by cogent and reliable evidence, as mere
inference or suspicion cannot displace the statutory liability. On the
material produced, the Railway has failed to discharge this burden.
23. The conclusion that the occurrence was not an "untoward incident"
is also not sustainable. The deceased was found dead on the track
between Nirakarpur and Tapang, consistent with an accidental fall
from a moving train. In the absence of reliable proof of suicide or any
criminal act on the part of the deceased, the incident must, in view of
Section 123(c)(2), be treated as an untoward incident attracting
Section 124-A.
24. In light of the above discussion, and applying the statutory
framework under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act
together with the principles governing burden of proof, this Court is
satisfied that the claimants discharged their initial burden of
establishing bona fide travel, and the onus thereafter shifted to the
Railway to prove suicide, trespass, or any circumstance falling under
the proviso to Section 124-A.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
25. The Railway relied exclusively on the enquiry reports, which were
neither proved through examination of the officials who prepared
them nor supported by any independent material. No evidence was
adduced to demonstrate deliberate self-harm, intentional trespass on
to the track, or any other fact bringing the case within the proviso to
Section 124-A. The Railway, therefore, failed to discharge the burden
that had shifted to it once bona fide travel was established.
26. In the absence of strict proof of any statutory exception, and the
material on record being consistent with an accidental fall from a
running train, the death must be treated as arising out of an
"untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Act.
VI. CONCLUSION:
27. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the death of
the deceased arose out of an untoward incident within the meaning
of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The appellants established
bona fide travel, and the Railway failed to prove any circumstance
falling within the proviso to Section 124-A.
28. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to compensation under
Section 124-A of the Railways Act. On the date of the accident, that is
19.03.2016, the amount payable for death under the Railway
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was
₹4,00,000/-. By virtue of the subsequent amendment enhancing the
amount to ₹8,00,000/- which applies to claims decided on or after
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
01.01.2017, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced amount, the
adjudication in the present case having taken place on 12.12.2018.
29. The impugned award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A. No.40 of 2017 is set aside. The
appellants shall be paid compensation of ₹8,00,000/- along with
interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the Original
Application, that is 14.03.2017, until payment. The respondent
Railway shall release the aforesaid amount within eight weeks.
30. The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the
Appellants proportionately by way of account transfer or cheque and
the rest of the amount to be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit
account for a period of five years or subject to the order of the
Tribunal.
31. The First Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
32. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 12th December, 2025
