[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India on 29 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: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No.36 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Bhanu Majhi .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sambit Das, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Rakesh Behera, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-13.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and order
dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for
brevity) in O.A.(IIU) Case No.234 of 2016 dismissing her claim
application for compensation arising out of the death of her daughter
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 factual matrix as set out in the case reveals that:
(i) On 23.05.2016 the deceased, Smt. Pada Majhi, undertook a
journey from Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi aboarding the
Visakhapatnam-Durg Passenger Train. During the said journey,
she is stated to have accidentally fallen from the moving train
between Kantabanjhi and Muribahal Railway Stations, resulting
in her instantaneous death.
(ii) The Appellant asserts that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger, having duly purchased her journey ticket, which
unfortunately went missing in the very course of the untoward
incident which led to a circumstance that has repeatedly been
acknowledged in judicial precedents as a plausible and natural
consequence of accidental falls which has been succinctly dealt in
Union of India v. Rina Devi1.
(iii) Upon the recovery of the body, the Government Railway Police
Station, Kantabanji registered U.D. Case No. 15 dated 23.05.2016
under the appropriate provisions and undertook the statutory
investigation. The inquest and post-mortem report, along with
other contemporaneous materials, form part of the record and
shed light on the nature of the injuries sustained.
(iv) The Respondent/Railway contested the claim before the Railway
Claims Tribunal and advanced the plea that the incident was not
a fall from a running train but a run-over case. Construing the
episode as one falling outside the statutory definition of an
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572
"untoward incident" under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-
A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Respondents further argued that
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
(v) This defence is one that bears a significant evidentiary burden on
the Railway Administration, for Section 124-A embodies a
principle of no-fault liability, and the presumption ordinarily
operates in favour of the victim unless the Railways establish one
of the statutory exceptions.
(vi) The Appellant, the mother of the deceased, entered the witness
box as A.W.1, filed her affidavit-in-evidence, and was duly cross-
examined. To corroborate the claim that the deceased had (a)
purchased a ticket and (b) accidentally fallen from the moving
train, the Appellant also examined A.W.3, an eyewitness whose
testimony lends material support to the foundational facts of
bona fide travel and accidental fall.
(vii) Judicial pronouncements consistently hold that once the claimant
establishes the basic facts of boarding the train and the accidental
fall, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the
presumption in favour of the claimant. In this respect, the
evidence led by the Appellant was neither inherently improbable
nor contradicted by any unimpeachable material.
(viii) Despite the above, the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, after framing the requisite issues,
proceeded to dismiss the claim application by its Judgment dated
06.01.2020 in O.A. No. 234 of 2016. The Tribunal concluded that
the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that
the occurrence did not constitute an "untoward incident,"
thereby disentitling the Appellant from the statutory
compensation.
(ix) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated
06.01.2020, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal,
assailing the findings as contrary to the evidence on record,
inconsistent with statutory presumptions under the Railways
Act, and out of step with the authoritative jurisprudence laid
down by the Supreme Court on accidental fall cases.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
i. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the dismissal of
the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar, is wholly unsustainable in law. It is argued that
the impugned judgment suffers from misappreciation of material
evidence, misapplication of statutory presumptions, and a
fundamental error in evaluating the contemporaneous records
pertaining to the alleged untoward incident which resulted in the
death of the Appellant's unmarried daughter. The findings
recorded by the Tribunal are asserted to be contrary to the
weight of evidence and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
It is contended that the claim petition was preferred under
Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking
statutory compensation on account of the death of Smt. Pada
Majhi on 23.05.2016. The deceased was travelling, by authority of
a valid journey ticket, from Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi in the
Visakhapatnam-Durg Passenger Train and accidentally fell from
the moving train between Kantabanjhi and Muribahal Railway
Stations.
ii. The Appellant further submits that the journey ticket was lost in
the course of the accident--a circumstance long recognised in
railway accident jurisprudence as neither unusual nor fatal to the
claim. As the deceased was unmarried, the Appellant, being her
mother, was the sole dependent and entitled in law to maintain
the claim.
iii. The Appellant places strong reliance on the testimony of A.W.3,
Shri Murali Majhi, who filed his affidavit and was subjected to
cross-examination by the Respondent. A.W.3 unequivocally
deposed that he was a co-passenger and had personally
witnessed the deceased fall from the moving train. He had also
furnished his statement before G.R.O.P., Kantabanjhi
contemporaneously with the occurrence. His evidence, it is
urged, robustly supports the foundational facts of (a) bona fide
travel, and (b) accidental fall , the facts which shift the
evidentiary burden onto the Railway Administration under
established jurisprudence.
iv. The testimony of A.W.3 stands materially corroborated by the
deposition of R.W., Shri Lalan Prasad Singh, the Inquiry
Officer/SI, RPF, Titlagarh. In cross-examination, he conceded that
the investigative material indicated that the deceased had indeed
fallen from the train.
v. Furthermore, the Inquest Report, Final Report, and other police
papers, all of which form part of the record, consistently affirm
the theory of accidental fall. In light of these materials, the
reliance placed by the Tribunal on Union of India v. Rina Devi
(supra) is asserted to have been misconceived, for the said
decision, properly appreciated, in fact strengthens the
Appellant's case by reiterating that the loss of ticket during an
untoward incident does not negate bona fide travel and that the
claimant is entitled to statutory presumptions under Section 124-
A of the Railways Act.
vi. The Appellant further argues that the Tribunal erred in treating
the absence of the ticket as indicative of unauthorised travel.
Ticketless travel, though impermissible, is visited by penal
consequences under Section 138(4) of the Railways Act, 1989, and
does not automatically imply deliberate evasion attracting a
finding of mala fides.
vii. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of
regularity and innocence attaches to the conduct of a passenger
unless rebutted by cogent evidence. It is contended that the
Railway Administration, vested with ample authority to check
tickets or apprehend unauthorized travellers, led no evidence to
show that the deceased was travelling without a ticket or had
engaged in unlawful travel.
viii. In the absence of such rebuttal, the presumption of bona fide
travel must ensure to the benefit of the deceased, consistent with
the ratio in Rina Devi (supra) and other binding judgment
ix. In view of the above submissions, the Appellant prays that the
impugned judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 234 of
2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, be set
aside as being contrary to the evidence on record, untenable in
law, and inconsistent with the statutory mandate governing
compensation for untoward incidents.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the Respondent made the
following submissions:
i. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent contends that the inquiry
materials unequivocally establish that no untoward incident
occurred in the Visakhapatnam-Durg Passenger Train on the
relevant date and time. The statements of Sri J. Das, on-duty Loco
Pilot, and Sri L. V. Rajulu, on-duty Guard of Train No. 58530,
reveal that on 23.05.2016 they worked the train from Titilagarh to
Raipur and that the train reached Raipur at 13.12 hours without
any Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP), detention, disturbance, or report
of an accident at any point along the section.
ii. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant has wholly failed to
discharge the initial burden of establishing that the deceased
suffered an accidental fall from the train. The surrounding
circumstances, when assessed in light of the record, do not
support the theory of an accidental fall, rather the circumstances
appear consistent with a self-inflicted or unrelated incident,
unconnected with railway operations. Furthermore, the
contemporaneous investigative documents like the FIR, Inquest
Report, Dead Body Chalan, Post-Mortem Report, and Final
Report do not record the recovery of any journey ticket from the
deceased.
iii. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further asserts that the
deceased cannot be regarded as a bona fide passenger, as no
journey ticket or travel authority was recovered during inquest
operation or investigation. No eyewitness has emerged to
support the claim that the deceased was travelling in the train or
fell from it. The on-duty crew of the alleged train categorically
denied having noticed any unusual occurrence or receiving any
information regarding such an incident.
iv. The Respondent further places reliance on the inconsistent
narrative raised by the Appellant, who stated that the deceased
and her elder brother, one Rajendra Majhi, had proceeded to
Kantabanjhi to withdraw money from a bank. According to the
Appellant's own account, they became separated in the
Kantabanjhi market, and subsequently the deceased's body was
discovered near Bangomunda Level Crossing Gate, which is
proximate to the market area. However, no missing report or FIR
was lodged by the family at any police station. These
inconsistencies, it is urged, undermine the Appellant's version
and cast serious doubt on the alleged railway travel.
v. The Ld Counsel for the Respondent further contends that the
Appellant herself stated that the deceased suffered from a mental
disorder and that she did not know how or why her daughter
came to be run over by a train. Such an admission, according to
the Respondent, negates the allegation of accidental fall from a
moving train and points instead towards an unfortunate incident
unconnected with any railway negligence. In this backdrop, it
may be stated that no fault whether in the nature of negligence,
omission, or operational lapse can be attributed to the Railway
Administration.
vi. Placing reliance on the Final Report prepared by the Police, the
Respondent asserts that it stands "well established" that the
deceased had never commenced any train journey on the date of
the occurrence. Consequently, it is argued that the statutory
ingredients of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the
Railways Act, 1989 are not fulfilled.
vii. Since no wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the
Railway Administration has been demonstrated, and as the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger, it is submitted that the
claim is untenable within the statutory framework governing
liability under Section 124-A. Accordingly, the dismissal of the
Original Application is justified and calls for no interference.
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, whole of the case of the applicant as
propounded in the claim application qua alleged journey of the
deceased and her accidental fall from the train stands falsified by the
statement of the applicant herself recorded during the course of DRM
inquiry. In her statement, she has stated that the deceased along with
her elder son, named, Rajendra Majhi had gone to Kantabanji for
withdrawing money from the bank, but unfortunately, they both got
separated in the market and later, the dead body of the deceased was
found near Bangomunda level crossing gate, which was situated near
Kantabanji market. She has further stated in her statement that her
daughter was apatient of mental disorder.
8. RW-1 Shri Lalan Prasad Singh, SV/RPF, in his affidavit, has also stated
the same facts and similar is the conclusion drawn in the DRM''s
report.
9. The evidence on record goes to show that the applicant has concocted a
false story and has suppressed the true and correct facts. The deceased
in this case was not travelling in the train. Precisely that is the reason
that no journey ticket was recovered from her person.
10.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:
11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent-Railway
Administration. I have also meticulously perused the pleadings, oral
and documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal, as well as the
impugned judgment. The central issues that arise for determination in
the present appeal are:
a. whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
b. whether the death occurred in an "untoward incident" as
contemplated under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989?
c. whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim?
A. Statutory Framework: Section 124-A and the No-Fault Liability
Regime
(i) Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault
liability principle. Once an untoward incident results in death or
injury, the Railway Administration becomes strictly liable to pay
statutory compensation unless it successfully brings the case within
one of the narrow statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted
injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural causes.
(ii) The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, particularly in Rina Devi
(supra) has unequivocally clarified that:
a. the claimant is entitled to a presumption of bona fide travel
once foundational facts are shown
b. loss of a ticket during an untoward incident is a common
occurrence and does not defeat the claim;
c. the burden shifts to the Railways to establish that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that one of the
statutory exceptions is attracted.
(iii) It is thus incumbent upon this Court to assess whether the
Railways have satisfactorily rebutted the initial presumption which
arises in favour of the Appellant.
B. Whether the Deceased Was a Bona Fide Passenger?
i. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the sole ground that no journey
ticket was recovered from the deceased. However, the law is now
well-settled that non-recovery of a ticket cannot by itself lead to
the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Tickets frequently get detached, misplaced, or lost during
accidents.
ii. The Appellant led evidence through A.W.1 and, more
importantly, through A.W.3 who is an eyewitness and who
deposed that the deceased (a) had purchased a valid ticket from
Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi, and (b) had accidentally fallen from the
moving train. His testimony was not shaken in cross-examination.
iii. This eyewitness account receives material corroboration from the
inquest report, final report, and deposition of R.W. (SI/RPF) who,
in cross-examination, candidly admitted that the investigative
material indicated that the deceased had fallen from the train.
iv. Further, the Respondent attempted to rely upon the statements of
the loco-pilot and guard who reported no untoward incident.
However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that absence of
Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) or lack of intimation to the crew does
not negate an untoward incident, as falls often go unnoticed in
crowded passenger trains running on open sections.
v. The Tribunal also relied heavily upon an alleged statement of the
Appellant referring to mental disorder of the deceased and her
moving through the market. This Court finds such reliance is
completely misplaced. Statements given to police or during
departmental inquiries are not substantive evidence unless duly
proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. Moreover, the so-
called inconsistencies do not outweigh (i) independent eyewitness
account, (ii) police materials indicating fall from a train, and (iii)
absence of any cogent rebuttal from the Railway Administration.
vi. Thus, the presumption of bona fide travel arising under Rina Devi
(supra) stands unrebutted, and the finding of the Tribunal to the
contrary is unsustainable.
C. Whether the Death Constitutes an "Untoward Incident"?
(i) The police inquest, post-mortem, and final report collectively
indicate injuries consistent with a fall from a moving train. No
material has been produced by the Railway Administration to
show that the deceased committed suicide, was intoxicated, or
engaged in any unlawful act.
(ii) The Respondent's attempt to label the incident as a run-over case
is unsupported by any forensic or eyewitness evidence. The
location of the body near the tracks is not, in itself, determinative
of a run-over; in fact, it is fully consistent with a fall from a
moving train.
(iii) There is similarly no evidence that the deceased's mental
condition, even assuming such allegation, had any causal nexus
with the incident. The burden to show that the case falls within the
statutory exception's rests squarely on the Railway
Administration. They have not discharged this burden
(iv) In light of the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the death of
the deceased occurred in an "untoward incident" as defined under
Section 123(c) of the Act.
D. Appreciation of the Tribunal's Findings
(i) The Tribunal appears to have adopted an approach contrary to the
law laid down in Rina Devi(supra), by treating absence of the
ticket as fatal to the claim and by placing undue emphasis upon
uncorroborated statements and departmental inquiry materials.
(ii) The Tribunal further erred in concluding that the Appellant
concocted a false story. Not only does the record not support such
a conclusion, but the very fact that the Respondent's own witness
(R.W./SI-RPF) admitted that the deceased fell from the train
militates against such a finding.
(iii) The Tribunal applied a standard of proof substantially heavier
than what the statutory scheme warrants. The Railways Claims
Tribunal Act incorporates a beneficial piece of social welfare
legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to the victims.
The Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have adopted a hyper-
technical approach.
(iv) The overall weight of evidence supports the Appellant's version
rather than the Respondent's. The Tribunal's findings are thus
perverse, unsupported by material evidence, and legally
untenable.
VI. CONCLUSION:
12.For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court holds that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger and her death occurred in an untoward
incident within the meaning of Section 123(c). However, the Railway
Administration failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section
124-A. the Tribunal's rejection of the claim is unsustainable and liable
to be interfered with.
13.In view of the foregoing analysis and the conclusions reached herein,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment
dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench in O.A. No.234 of 2016 cannot be sustained in law.
Consequently, the same is hereby set aside.
14.The death of the deceased Smt. Pada Majhi having been found to be
the result of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section
123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Appellant
is legally entitled to statutory compensation.
15.As on the date of the incident i.e. 23.05.2016 the notified compensation
for death under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended by Notification dated
22.12.2016, stood revised from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. However,
judicial pronouncements like Rathi Menon v. Union of India and UOI
v. Radha Yadav clarify that the rate of compensation applicable is the
one prevailing on the date of incident, not the date of decision.
16.Accordingly, as the incident occurred on 23.05.2016, prior to the
enhancement effective from 01.01.2017, the applicable statutory
compensation is Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).
17. The claimant (s) may be allowed to withdraw 50% of the award
amount within two months from today and rest of the amount be
deposited in an interest-bearing account for minimum period of Three
years.
18.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th November, 2025/
