[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... vs Jambhu Nahak & Ors on 29 November, 2025
Author: Sanjeebk Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 01-Dec-2025 16:25:20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.317 of 2016
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987)
Union of India .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Jambhu Nahak & Ors. .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rajesh Ku. Mahapatra, Sr. P.C.
For Respondent (s) : None
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025
Dr. SanjeebK Panigrahi, J.
1. The instant First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the Appellant
assailing the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the Learned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.101 of 2012. By the
said order, the Tribunal allowed the claim application and directed
payment of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of registration of the claim
application. The Tribunal further directed that the compensation be
paid within 60 days, failing which the Appellant shall be liable to pay
interest at 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:
(a) On 28.01.2012, one Ranka Nahak reportedly fell from the
running Visakha Express near Khalikote Railway Station while
travelling from Bhubaneswar to Chatrapur and sustained fatal
injuries. An Unnatural Death Case was registered at GRPS,
Berhampur as U.D. Case No. 06 of 2012.
(b) The present respondents, being the dependants of the deceased,
thereafter instituted O.A. No.101 of 2012 before the Learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench under Section 16
of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest. They asserted that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger who had purchased a valid journey
ticket, though the ticket was stated to have been lost at the time
of the incident.
(c) Upon receipt of notice, the present appellant entered appearance
and filed its written statement denying the averments made in
the claim.
(d) Upon completion of pleadings and after affording opportunity
of hearing to both sides, the learned Tribunal framed five issues
for adjudication. Upon consideration of the materials on record,
all issues were answered in favour of the respondents. The
Tribunal directed payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
application till the date of the order, to be paid within sixty
days, failing which interest at 8% per annum from the date of
default till realization was directed.
(e) Aggrieved thereby, the present appellant has instituted this
appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
i. It was contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
the specific plea in the written statement that the deceased was
not a bona fide passenger. In support of this contention, reliance
was placed on the post-mortem report, wherein the doctor had
opined that the death had occurred about two to three days
earlier, which the appellant contended undermines the
respondents' case. On this basis, it was urged that the occurrence
does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) and 124A of the
Railways Act and, consequently, the appellant cannot be
fastened with liability. It was therefore submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
ii. It was further submitted that since no valid journey ticket was
recovered from the possession of the deceased, he could not
have been regarded as a bona fide passenger. As a person who is
not a bona fide passenger is not entitled to compensation under
the statutory scheme, it was contended that the Tribunal erred in
proceeding to award compensation, which is unsustainable in
law.
iii. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to place
due reliance on the testimony of the Guard, who was examined
as R.W.-1, as well as on the report prepared by the Divisional
Railway Manager, the officer responsible for such reporting
within the organization. It was submitted that had any such
incident actually occurred, the same would have been reported
by co-passengers or by the concerned authorities who are
custodians of the running train. In the absence of any such
contemporaneous report, the alleged occurrence cannot be
accepted. It is also asserted that, even on a consideration of the
medical papers, the injuries may be self-inflicted or otherwise
unconnected with any railway incident, in respect of which the
Railway Administration had neither control nor nexus.
iv. It was further contended that the alleged incident does not fall
within the ambit of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, as the
deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor the victim of an
untoward incident. It was asserted that the death was
attributable to a self-inflicted injury and therefore fell within the
exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A, disentitling the
claimants to compensation.
v. It was further submitted that while discussing the issues, the
learned Tribunal relied upon certain judgments rendered by this
Court and the Supreme Court, holding them to be squarely
applicable to the present case. It was submitted that the
decisions so relied upon have no application to the facts at hand,
and the reliance placed thereon is misplaced.
vi. It was further contended that while discussing and answering all
the issues in favour of the claimant, the learned Tribunal placed
undue reliance on the police papers, particularly the inquest
report, and proceeded to hold that the deceased had accidentally
fallen while boarding the train and sustained injuries. It is
pertinent to note that, under the Criminal Procedure Code, an
inquest report is not an instrument determinative of the nature
or cause of death. The learned Tribunal, without proper judicial
scrutiny, treated the inquest report as conclusive proof of the
occurrence. Such reliance amounts to a clear non-application of
judicial mind, rendering the award directing payment of
compensation otherwise unsustainable in law.
vii. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal, while adjudicating
the matter, relied upon the medical report and concluded that
the post-mortem findings indicated death due to a fall from a
running train. However, the doctor who conducted the post-
mortem clearly opined that the time since death was
approximately two to three days prior to the alleged occurrence.
Even assuming the medical opinion to be correct, it cannot be
definitively inferred that the death resulted from the alleged
accident.
viii. Since there was no sufficient material before the learned
Tribunal either in oral or documentary form, the learned
Tribunal, instead of dismissing the claim application, proceeded
to direct payment of compensation along with interest. Such an
approach, it was contended, is arbitrary and illegal and liable to
be set aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not enter appearance. In
view of their continued absence notwithstanding due opportunity, the
Court was constrained to take up the matter and adjudicate the appeal
on its merits on the basis of the record.
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:
1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger for
his journey in UP Visakha express from
Bhubaneswar to Chatrapur on 28.01.2012?
2. Whether the death of the deceased was on account of
anuntoward incident as defined within the meaning
of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the respondent isexempted?
4. Whether the applicantsare dependents of the
deceased?
5. To what relief the applicants are entitled to?
6. While deciding Issue No. 4, the Tribunal accepted the testimony of
A.W.1, which stood corroborated by the documentary evidence on
record. As the respondent had not produced any evidence in rebuttal,
the Tribunal held that the applicants were the sole dependants of the
deceased under Section 123(b) of the Act.
7. On Issues Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal observed that though there was
no eyewitness account, the police papers, namely U.D. Case No. 06 of
2012, the enquiry report, the inquest report and the post mortem
report, consistently indicated that the deceased had sustained fatal
injuries compatible with an accidental fall from a running train. The
final police report ruled out foul play. The Tribunal held that the
evidence of R.W.1, the Guard, amounted only to a general denial and
was insufficient to displace the police and medical records. The report
of the Divisional Railway Manager also did not contradict the police
findings.
8. The Tribunal held that the occurrence constituted an untoward
incident under Section 123(c) and that none of the exceptions in the
proviso to Section 124A had been made out. Liability under Section
124A being based on strict liability, the Railway Administration was
held responsible for payment of compensation.
9. While deciding Issue No. 1, the Tribunal accepted the testimony of
A.W.2 that he had seen the deceased purchase the journey ticket.
Although no ticket was recovered during the inquest, the respondent
led no evidence to show that the deceased was travelling
unauthorisedly. The Tribunal held that non-recovery of a ticket in a
fatal accident is not conclusive and that the initial burden stood
discharged by the applicants. The deceased was therefore held to be a
bona fide passenger.
10. On Issue No. 5, the Tribunal held that since the deceased was a bona
fide passenger who died in an untoward incident, the applicants were
entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under Part I of the Schedule
read with Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990.
11. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the
respondent to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of institution until the date of the order, payable within 60
days, failing which the amount would carry interest at 8% per annum
until realization. Out of the awarded amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was
allotted to the widow (applicant No.1) and Rs.1,00,000/- each to the
two children (applicant Nos. 2 and 3). The applicants were directed to
furnish their bank account details within 30 days to enable deposit of
the awarded amount.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
13. The controversy in the present appeal essentially pertains to three
interrelated questions, namely:
a. whether the deceased could be regarded as a bona fide
passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act,
1989;
b. whether his death occurred in an "untoward incident"
as defined under Section 123(c) of the said Act; and
c. whether the case is covered by any of the exceptions
enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A so as to
absolve the Railway Administration of liability.
14. The appellant contends that the learned Tribunal misdirected itself in
law in appreciating the police papers and medical evidence, and in
applying the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The scope
of interference in this First Appeal is, therefore, confined to examining
whether the findings of the learned Tribunal suffer from any illegality,
perversity, or misapplication of settled principles of law.
15. In order to appreciate these contentions, it is appropriate to
recapitulate the statutory scheme.
16. 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 124A. The relevant
provisions are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
"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 awaiting 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."
"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 or a valid
platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward
incident."
17. Given that the Railways Act, 1989 is intended to provide timely relief
to victims of railway accidents and their dependants, it is a social
welfare legislation. Accordingly, its provisions must receive a liberal
interpretation so as to advance the object of the statute rather than
defeat it. Courts have consistently cautioned against adopting a hyper-
technical approach while dealing with claims of railway accident
victims or their dependants.
18. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1, the Supreme Court
held that the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) cannot be construed narrowly
or restrictively. 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
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
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 purposive, and not literal
interpretation should be given to the expression."
19. The legal position is equally well settled that mere non-recovery of a
journey ticket is not sufficient to deny the status of bona fide
passenger, nor does the burden of proof remain indefinitely with the
claimants.
20. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi2 clarifiedthat once
the dependants disclose the basic facts relating to the journey, the
initial burden stands discharged and the onus shifts to the Railway
Administration to establish the absence of bona fide travel or the
applicability of any statutory exception. The Court 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
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
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
inthis regard will stand explained accordingly."
21. The principal contention advanced by the appellant is that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was
recovered during the inquest, and that the medical opinion regarding
the time since death allegedly contradicts the claim narrative. On a
perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has
considered this aspect in detail. A.W.2 categorically deposed that he
had accompanied the deceased and had seen him purchase a journey
ticket. His testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination and no
material has been placed on record to doubt his credibility. In cases of
fatal railway accidents, non-recovery of a small paper ticket during
inquest proceedings cannot, by itself, give rise to a presumption of
unauthorised travel. In view of the principles laid down in Rina Devi
(supra), the initial burden cast on the claimants stood discharged upon
disclosure of the basic facts relating to the journey. The Railway
Administration, however, did not adduce any cogent evidence or
contemporaneous reports to establish that the deceased was travelling
without a valid ticket. The finding of the learned Tribunal on the
status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger is, therefore, based on a
proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference.
22. As regards the occurrence itself, the police papers, namely the U.D.
Case records, the inquest report, the enquiry report and the post-
mortem report, consistently indicate that the injuries sustained by the
deceased were compatible with a fall from a running train. The
appellant has brought no material on record to dislodge these
findings. The evidence of R.W.1, the Guard, was of a general nature
and did not exclude the possibility of a fall between stations, which is
not always within the direct observation of train staff. The report of
the Divisional Railway Manager also does not contradict the
conclusions reached by the investigating agency. On the contrary, the
medical and police records, read together, fully support the finding of
the learned Tribunal that the death occurred in an untoward incident
within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
23. The appellant's reliance on the doctor's opinion regarding the time
since death is also misplaced. Such opinion is, by its very nature, an
approximation and cannot be treated as conclusive so as to displace
the consistent documentary evidence on record, particularly when the
inquest report, the U.D. Case enquiry and the post-mortem findings
uniformly indicate injuries consistent with an accidental fall from a
running train.
24. Moreover, the Railway Administration has not established that the
death falls within any of the exceptions contemplated in the proviso to
Section 124A, such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act,
intoxication or insanity. In the absence of proof of any statutory
exception, the liability under Section 124A necessarily follows.
25. The learned Tribunal has examined each issue independently and has
applied the principles of law governing claims arising out of untoward
incidents. The findings recorded are supported by the evidence on
record and do not disclose any illegality, perversity or misapplication
of law warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The award of
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest at 6 per cent per
annum is in consonance with the Schedule to the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 and is consistent
with the settled legal position.
VI. CONCLUSION:
26. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal. The impugned judgment/ order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.101
of 2012 does not call for interference.
27. The First Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
28. The directions issued by the learned Tribunal regarding payment,
interest, apportionment and disbursement stand affirmed. The
compensation shall be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with
law.
29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th November, 2025/
