Bipin Lugun & Anr vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 10020 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bipin Lugun & Anr vs Union Of India on 14 November, 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-Nov-2025 18:25:26




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  F.A.O No.98 of 2025

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

          Bipin Lugun & Anr.                          ....                      Appellant(s)
                                           -versus-
          Union of India                              ....                 Respondent(s)
        Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

          For Appellant (s)           :                    Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Adn

          For Respondent (s)          :                        Ms. Sephalee Das, CGC.

                    CORAM:
                    DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                         DATE OF HEARING:-07.11.2025
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025

        Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenge the judgment and

order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity)

in O.A.(IIU) No.74 of 2024 dismissing their 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:













     (i)     On 22.12.2023, the deceased Sanjaya Lugun was travelling from

Bamra (BMS) to Garposh (GPH) Railway Station by Train No.

18110, Itwari-Tata Express Train, due to push and pull of co-

passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the

running train near Garposh-TGM section, as a result he

sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was

a bona fide passenger and the ticket was lost in the accident.

(ii) The GRPS, Jharsuguda registered UD Case No. 56/2023 and

investigated into the matter. The Police during the inquest

recorded cause of death of the deceased to be fall down from

running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report

and other papers.

(iii) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal concluded that the

victim died due to his own negligence and was not a bona fide

passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.

(iv) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2025

passed in O.A. No. 74 of 2024 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellants preferred this 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 submitted that the dismissal of the Original

Application by the Railway ClaimsTribunal, 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 further contended that the Inquest Report, the

Postmortem Report, and the Final Report, unanimously

conclude that the death of the deceased was due to fall from

the train. No cogent or contrary evidence has been adduced by

the Railways to rebut these findings. It was urged that mere

reliance on the DRM's report, unsupported by any substantive

proof, cannot from the sole basis for denying the claim.

(iii) The Appellant further contended that the deceased fell near LC

No. 231 at KM No. 465/02 from the alleged train and thereafter,

was removed to CHC Hospital, Garposh with the assistance of

his elder brother, who was travelling with him , and RPF

personnel by means of a 108 Ambulances, where doctor

declared him dead.

(iv) The Appellants urged that there was an eye witness to the

occurrence, namely, A.W.2, Karan Kugun, who deposed that

on the date of the incident, he was travelling along with the

deceased. Both had purchased journey tickets from Barma

Railway Sation to travel up to Garposh Railway Station.

During the course of the journey, the said witness categorically

stated that he saw the deceased accidentally fall from the

moving train, as a result of which he sustained grievous

injuries leading to his death.

(v) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants

have produced sufficient materials to establish that the

deceased was travelling from Bamra to Garposh Railway

Station, and fell from the running train, sustained injuries and

subsequently scummed to them. The absence of ticket

recovery, or any allegation of criminal negligence, does not

undermine the claim within the ambit of Section 124A. The

incident squarely falls within the definition of an 'untoward

incident', and none of the statutory exceptions are attracted.

(vi) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned

judgment dated 24.01.2025 passed in O.A. No. 74 of 2024 by the

Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench,

Bhubaneswar may be set aside, as the same is not sustainable

in law.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the

following submissions:

(i) The deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey

ticket was recovered from his possession at the time of inquest.

The alleged incident therefore does not fall within the

definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of

the Railways Act, 1989.

(ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily

discharge this primary onus. The surrounding circumstances,

when objectively assessed in the light of the available record,

do not lend credence to the theory of an accidental fall from a

running train; rather they un mistakably point towards a self-

inflicted act.

(iii) The Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of

A.W-2, as his deposition lacked credibility and appeared to be

motivated by an ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather

than being based on truthful narration of facts.

(iv) The Appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of

proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling

with a valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident.

The inquest proceedings, as well as other contemporaneous

records, do not indicate recovery of any travel ticket form the

person or belongings of the deceased. The plea of selective loss

of the journey ticket, as taken in the original application, is not

acceptable.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. Upon considering the materials placed on record, the learned

Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication and proceeded to decide

the same upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by both parties.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the

deceased was not established to be bona fide passenger. It found that

the journey ticket was not recovered. Consequently, the Tribunal

held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of

lawful travel by the deceased.

7. The Tribunal observed that, during the course of the Inquest

Proceedings, no journey ticket was found in the possession of the

deceased. It also took note of the certificate submitted by the Inquiry

Officer from the Senior Divisional Commercial Manger (Sr.DCM),

South Eastern Railway, indicating that no journey ticket had been

issues from UTS/Bamra (BMB) Railway Station and found that

"there was no any journey ticket issued from Bamra (BMB) to

Garposh (GPH) Railway Station on 22/12/2023. Additionally, the

Tribunal noted that AW-2, co-passenger and elder brother of the

deceased, had furnished two inconsistent statements regarding the

purchase of the ticket and, therefore, held that his testimony did not

inspire confidence.

8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances on record do not indicate

or substantiate that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the

train. Consequently, the occurrence cannot be construed as an

"untoward incident". Since the establishment of an incident is sine

qua non for entitlement to statutory compensation under Section

124A of the Act, the failure to satisfy this foundational requirement

disentitles the claimants to relief. Accordingly, the Railways stands

absolved of liability under the exception clause of Section 124A of the

Act.

9. The Tribunal observed that mere recovery of a dead body on a

railway track does not ipso facto prove that the death occurred due

to an accidental fall from a running train. In the absence of a valid

journey ticket and credible evidence, the claim that the deceased was

a bona fide passenger was not established. The GRPS's final report

indicating accidental fall was treated as being based on assumption

and not constituting conclusive proof.

10.Consequently, the Tribunal found that the incident could not be

brought within the ambit of an "untoward incident" under Section

123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, nor was the appellant entitled to

compensation under Section 124-A thereof. The Tribunal observed

that the case fell within the exceptions enumerated under Section

124-A, as there was no proof of bona fide travel or accidental fall.

11. In view of the above findings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the

claim application, holding that the Railway Administration was not

liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. No order as

to costs was made.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

12. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the materials on

record.

13. Before delving into the factual matrix, it is apposite to recapitulate

the legal framework governing claims under Sections 123 and 124-A

of the Railways Act, 1989.

14. The Railways Act, 1989, contemplates a regime of strict liability cast

upon the Railway Administration in cases of death or injury

resulting from an "untoward incident". Upon the establishment of

such an occurrence, the Railway is statutorily obligated to disburse

compensation, irrespective of negligence or fault on its part, save and

except where it is able to bring the case within the ambit of the

exceptions delineated under the proviso to Section 124-A, namely,

suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or insanity, or

natural cause.

15.It is now a well settled proposition of law that the mere absence of a

journey ticket or pass, by itself, does not warrant the inference that

the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

16.The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, has

authoritatively laid down that upon the claimant producing an

affidavit asserting that the deceased was a passenger who met with

death in the course of railway travel, the burden proof shifts to the

Railway Administration to rebut such assertion or establish that the

case falls within any of the statutory exceptions. 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.

(2019) 3 SCC 572.

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."

17. It is further pertinent to observe that departmental inquiry reports

such as the DRM report must be possess contemporaneity and

credibility to command evidentiary weight. A belated or perfunctory

report prepared after an undue lapse of time, without due

examination of primary evidence, bears little probative value and

cannot prevail over contemporaneous records such as those

maintained by the police or medical authorities.

18. This Court observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

creates a no-fault liability on the part of the Railway Administration

in cases where death and injury occurs due to an "untoward

incident". Unless the case falls within one of the enumerated

exceptions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran

Vijaya Kumar2,

"........11. 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

(2008) 9 SCC 527

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 interpretation and not a narrow and technical one".

19. Applying the settled legal principles to the facts of the present case,

it is evident from the inquest report, post-mortem report and the

final report consistently record that the deceased died due to fall

from a running train.

20. It is observed that the police investigation and GRPS records

indicate that the deceased fell down from the running train near

Garposh Railway Station. No evidence was led by the Railways to

rebut this version or to show that the deceased was trespasser. Thus,

in absence of contrary evidence, and keeping in mind the principles

laid down in Rina Devi (Supra), the deceased is entitled to be treated

as a bona fide passenger.

21. In the present case, the non-recovery of the journey ticket, having

evidently lost it in the course of the incident, the evidentiary corpus,

viewed cumulatively, unequivocally substantiates the plea of bona

fide passengership and the occurrence of an untoward incident. the

evidence adduced by the Appellant sufficiently discharges the initial

burden of proof and establishes a strong presumption that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger.

22. The Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the inconsistent statements of

A.W.2 regarding the purchase of the journey ticket and further

speculated that the death could have resulted from a self-inflicted

injury. However, there is nothing on record to suggest the presence

of any intent or suicidal motive on the part of the deceased. The

approach adopted by the Respondent in disregarding such cogent

and conclusive evidence, and the consequent decision of the Tribunal

against the Appellants, is legally unsustainable and amounts to

manifest illegality resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice.

23. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present

case, it transpires that although certain factual discrepancies exist in

the evidentiary record, a judicious and balanced appreciation of the

material on record unmistakably tilts the balance in favour of the

Appellants. The case advanced by the Appellants stands on a firmer

legal footing, as the Railway Administration has failed to discharge

the evidentiary burden incumbent upon it to bring the case within

the ambit of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Section 124A

of the Railways Act, 1989. While the Appellants have duly

discharged their initial burden, the corresponding obligation that

shifted to the Railway Administration to establish the applicability of

any exception has remained unfulfilled.

VI. CONCLUSION:

24. In In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded

hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

judgment dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 74 of 2024 cannot be sustained in law and

hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the deceased Sanjaya

Lugun, met his death in an "untoward incident" within the meaning

and contemplation of Section 124A of the Act, and the deceased was

a bona fide passenger entitled to the protection and benefits

envisaged under the said statutory provision.

25. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

26. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation

of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) to the appellant along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the

date of actual payment.

27. 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 three years or subject to the order of

the Tribunal.

28. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 14th November, 2025/