[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... 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: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              FAO No. 572 of 2020
       (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
       1987)

       Bala Pujari                                ....                Appellant (s)

                                       -versus-


       Union of India                             ....               Respondent (s)

     Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

       For Appellant (s)           :                    Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
                                                                      On behalf of
                                                       Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.


       For Respondent (s)          :                       Mr. Millan Kumar, CGC

                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                      DATE OF HEARING:-23.10.2025
                     DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

     Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In filing this FAO, the Appellant claiming himself to be the legal heir

of the deceased who is claimed to have been died of a train accident,

has challenged the impugned judgment/ order dated 25.11.2019

passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,

Bhubaneswar in O.A No.38 of 2016.

Apart from the above challenge, the Appellant has also sought for a

direction from this Court to the Respondent for granting necessary

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

compensation in his favour due to untimely death of his son in the

alleged train accident.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

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

(a) Due to some personal work at home the deceased on 02.01.2016 was travelling from Jagadalpur to Koraput by Jagadalpur-

Bhubaneswar Hirakhand Express bearing train No.18448 as a bona

fide passenger. The deceased is claimed to have been proceeding

on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is alleged that during

course of journey, due to push and pull of passengers inside the

compartment, the deceased fell down from the said train in

between Jeypore-Chhatriput Railway Station at KM No.230/07-08

and died on the spot. Soon after the said incident a criminal case

was instituted.

(b) Upon institution of the said criminal case and completion of investigation necessary report was submitted. After death of the

deceased, the Appellant filed a case bearing O.A No.38 of 2016

before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,

Bhubaneswar seeking necessary compensation.

(c) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded

that the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and not a victim

of any untoward incident. The claim application was, accordingly,

dismissed.

(i) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment/ order dated

25.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A No.38 of 2016 the

Appellant preferred this appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Tribunal found that no ticket was produced or recovered

during investigation, that the testimony of AW- I was unreliable,

the injury sustained by the deceased was not possible due to fall

down from running train and the incident did not fall under the

ambit of untoward incident since there were no eye-witnesses to

the same.

(ii) At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework.

Section l24A of the Railways Act enacts a regime of strict liability.

Once it is established that death or injury has occurred as a result

of an 'untoward incident', the Railway Administration is bound

to pay compensation, unless the case falls within the narrowly

defined exceptions of suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act,

intoxication, or natural cause. Negligence, even gross negligence,

is not among these exceptions. This position was firmly settled in

Union of India v. Prabhaharan Vijaya Kumar1, where the

Supreme Court held that fault or negligence is irrelevant under

the no-fault scheme of Section 124A. In the present case, the

learned Tribunal has outrightly denied cause of death of the

deceased to be an untoward incident merely because the PM

(2008) 9 SCC 527

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

report states that the cause of death of the deceased was

neurogenic shock as a result of crushing of head. The injuries

sustained are ante mortem in nature and caused due to heavy

hard and blunt force impact. Further, there was no eye-witness to

the occurrence. It is a settled position of law that lack of eye-

witness does not negate the claim of the applicant as the Railways

Act is a beneficial legislation. Further, it is a settled position of law

that speculation of run-over by a train when there is doubt is

legally untenable. It is a matter of common occurrence that an

accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in the

passenger being run over either by the same train or by another,

thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such subsequent

development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as

an "accidental fall". There is no material on record to suggest any

alternative hypothesis, such as the deceased being present on the

railway track independent of the train journey. On the contrary,

the contemporaneous records, viz. the inquest report, postmortem

examination and the final police report, unequivocally attribute

the cause of death to a fall from the train. This principle has

already been settled by this Court in Santosh Ku Sahoo vs. Union

of India2.

(iii) On the question of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal laid

undue emphasis on the non-production of a ticket. The law on this

issue stands settled in Union of India u Rina Devi3, wherein the

(2018) 3 SCC 319

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Supreme Court recognized that in train accident cases, tickets are

frequently lost, misplaced, or destroyed during the incident or

subsequent medical treatment. It was held that bona fide

passenger status may be established by circumstantial or oral

evidence, and non-recovery of a ticket cannot by itself be fatal to a

claim.

(iv) In the present case, the applicant produced the Inquest Report,

PM report, dead body challan, seizure list, zimanama and memo

of SMR Koraput, all of which point out that the cause of death of

the deceased was due to fall down from running train and there is

no suspicion of any foul play. AW-I, the father of the deceased,

deposed that the deceased was travelling from Jagdalpur to

Koraput on a valid journey ticket and had accidentally fallen

down from running train, causing his instant death. Therefore,

negating the evidence of AW-l regarding the manner death of the

deceased which is supported by other investigation documents

clearly shows the arbitrariness in the impugned order. The

respondent did not adduce any cogent material to rebut this

evidence, apart from speculative statements in the DRM's inquiry

(v) The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the fact that the nature of

injuries of the deceased does not correspond to ones being

inflicted on falling down from running train and there was no

journey ticket is merely speculative and does not have any

evidence for support. Au contraire, all the documentary evidence

adduced by the applicant including inquest report, PM report

point towards the established fact that the cause of death of the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

deceased was due to fall down from running train without any

suspicion of foul play. Such conjectural reasoning cannot displace

the statutory presumption once the basic fact of an accidental fall

is established. In Jameela v. Union of India4 , the Supreme Court

made it explicit that even if a passenger stands at the open door of

a train and falls, the occurrence constitutes an 'untoward incident'

and compensation is payable. To deny relief on the ground of

negligence would be to introduce a defence not contemplated by

the proviso to Section 124A.

(vi) Weighing the evidence, it was submitted that the applicant has

adduced sufficient material to establish that the deceased was

travelling on a valid journey ticket, that he fell accidentally from

the train at KM No.230107-08 between Jeypore Chhatriput railway

station, and that he succumbed to injuries sustained in the fall.

The absence of ticket recovery, or the suggestion of speculative

reasoning, does not dislodge the claim within the framework of

Section 124A. The incident falls squarely within the definition of

an "untoward incident" and none of the statutory exceptions are

attracted.

(vii) In view of the above, this Court may set aside the impugned

judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed in OA No. 2812016 and award

the appellant Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation along with 12%

interest per annum form the date of application. Even though the

appellant had claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal,

this Court may consider the appellant's claim for Rs.8,00,000/-

(2010) 12 SCC 113

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

compensation in lieu of the Ministry of Railway Notification No.

G.S.R. 1165(E) dated 22.12.2016 whereby compensation for death

due to railway accident has been fixed at Rs.8,00,000/- and that of

injury is fixed at Rs.4,00,000/-.

(viii) It was further submitted that this Court may be pleased to direct

the Respondent railways to deposit the entire award amount

along with interest before the Tribunal and further direct the

Tribunal to disburse 50% of the said award amount in favour of

the appellant and keep the rest in Fixed Deposit.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(a) As per the Memo and CTS Diary Entry No.12 and JYP DE No.14(J) dated 03.01.2016 one male person aged about 31 years found lying

dead at KM No.230/07-05 between Section CTS-JYP. As such the

alleged incident dated 02.01.2016 cannot be termed as an untoward

incident, as defined under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act,

1989. It was further contended that the deceased was not a bona

fide passenger at the time of alleged incident. It was further stated

that the applicant had no personal knowledge of the incident. The

Respondent, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the above noted

O.A.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUAL, BHUBANESWAR :

5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench heard the parties,

perused the documents on record, and upon the basis of the pleadings

framed five issues for consideration:-

i. Whether the death of the deceased was due to accidental

fall as defined U/s.123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

ii. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bonafide

passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the

untoward incident?

iii. Whether the respondent railway administration is

protected U/s.124 A of the Railways Act and is not liable

to pay any compensation to the applicants?

iv. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the

deceased to receive the compensation as claimed?

v. To what relief the applicant is entitled to?

6. In order to strengthen his case, the Applicant got himself examined

and filed photocopies of the SM Memo, inquest report, dead body

chalan, post-mortem report, seizure lit, Adhar card of the deceased

and Zimanama in Koraput GRPS UD Case No.01/2016.

7. In its opposition, the Respondent also filed the DRM report along with

certain documents marked as Ext.R/1 and examined one B.S Kumar,

Inspector/RPF/Laxmipur as R.W.1.

8. Since all the above noted issues were interconnected, these issues were

taken up together for adjudication simultaneously by the learned

Bench. The learned Bench, accordingly, dealt with the above issues

with the following answers:-

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

9. While dealing with the Issue Nos.1 to 3, the learned Bench observed

that Applicant Bala Pujari (AW/1) in his affidavit (Exb.AW 1/1) and

deposition averred that, on 02.01.2016, his son Komal Pujari were

travelling from Jagadalpur to Koraput on the strength of a valid

railway journey ticket and had accidentally fallen down from the

running train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the

journey ticket got lost during the incident.

10. The Respondent in their defence had examined the Inquiry

Officer/RPF as R.W. 1 who in his affidavit in evidence had stated that

there was no eye witness to the incident and no journey ticket was

recovered from the possession of the deceased during inquest and

there is no proof of the alleged journey by the deceased. However, the

Respondent had filed the DRM report wherein it was stated that the

deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the falling down of the

deceased is a concocted story to get the claim fraudulently from the

railways.

11. The statement of the applicant Bala Pujari was recorded by the Inquiry

Officer/RPF which reveals that he does not have any knowledge that

his son was travelling in any train. The doctor in the post-mortem

report has opined that the death is instantaneous and due to

neurogenic shock as a result of crushing of head. The injuries are ante

mortem in nature and caused due to heavy hard and blunt force

impact and considering these injuries, which were inflicted on the

deceased, by no stretch of imagination it can be said or concluded that

the deceased person had fallen down from train. Such grievous

injuries can only be inflicted on a person, who has been knocked down

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

by train. In this case the final report of the GRP is not filed. Though

other articles were seized from the possession of the deceased, the

journey ticket was not found from the deceased.

12. On perusal of entire record, the learned Tribunal found that the

applicant has failed to prove that the deceased was travelling in a train

carrying passengers; that he was having a valid journey ticket and had

died due to accidentally falling down from running train. Accordingly,

the learned Tribunal hold that the deceased was not a bona fide

passenger and his death was not caused in an untoward incident as

defined under Section 123 (C)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 and in the

process, hold the Respondent not liable to pay compensation to the

applicant/Appellant as per the provision under Section 124 A of the

Railways Act. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1, 2 & 3 were decided

against the Applicant.

13. While dealing with the Issue No.4 the learned Tribunal observed that

the applicant Bala Pujari during his examination before the Court has

stated that the deceased is his son who was unmarried. The applicant

has also filed a copy of the certificate issued by the local Sarpanch,

Batasana GP to prove his relationship with the deceased. The Police

papers also show that the applicant Bala Pujari is the father of the

deceased. There is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, it was held that

the applicant being the father under Section 123(b)(i) of the Railway

Act, 1989 is the legal dependant of the deceased Komal Pujari. Issue

No.4 was, accordingly, decided.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

14. While dealing with the Issue No.5 the learned Tribunal observed that

in view of his findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3 the applicant is not entitled

to any compensation or relief.

15. Accordingly, the learned Bench/Tribunal after dealing with all the

issues and hearing both the parties, ordered that the claim application

is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record. The present appeal arises from the rejection of the Appellant's

claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Upon an overall assessment of the factual matrix, pleadings, and rival

submissions, the following broad questions fall for determination

before this Court:

a. Whether the death of the Appellant's son occurred due

to an "accidental fall from a train carrying passengers"

and therefore qualifies as an "untoward incident"

within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways

Act?

b. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger,

notwithstanding the non-recovery of the journey ticket?

c. Whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding the

nature of injuries and absence of the ticket were based

on legally sustainable reasoning?

d. Consequent entitlement of the Appellant to

compensation under the strict-liability regime of Section

124A.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

A. The Statutory Scheme: Strict Liability and Its Consequences

i. The Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault liability regime in

the matter of compensation for railway accidents. Section

124A makes the Railway Administration unconditionally

liable once the death or injury is proved to have arisen out of

an untoward incident, except in cases falling within the

narrowly enumerated exceptions, namely suicide, self-

inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or natural cause. As

the Supreme Court emphatically held in Union of India v.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar5 negligence on the part of the

passenger or of the Railways is wholly irrelevant under this

statutory dispensation. The judicial task is, therefore, limited

to determining whether the foundational facts attracting

Section 124A stand proved; the Railways cannot introduce

defences not contemplated by the statute.

ii. The law further demands that the provisions be interpreted in

a beneficial and purposive manner, keeping in mind the

socio-welfare objective of the enactment. Denial of

compensation cannot rest on conjectures, technicalities, or

speculative assumptions.

B. Whether the Occurrence Qualifies as an "Untoward Incident"

i. On the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the nature of

injuries The Tribunal concluded that the injuries sustained

by the deceased particularly the crushing of the head were

incompatible with a fall from a moving train and were

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

instead indicative of a run-over. The Tribunal inferred that

the story of accidental fall was "concocted."This line of

reasoning is contrary to well-settled jurisprudence. It is a

matter of common occurrence, judicially recognized in

multiple precedents, that a passenger who falls from a

moving train may subsequently be dragged or run over

either by the same train or by another passing train. The

subsequent aggravation of injuries does not alter the

intrinsic character of the initial mishap as an accidental fall.

ii. In Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India6, this Court

categorically held that where documentary evidence such

as the inquest report, post-mortem report, and police

papers attributes the cause of death to a fall from the train,

speculative theories of run-over cannot defeat the statutory

presumption.

iii. The present case is squarely covered by this principle. The

inquest report, post-mortem report, dead-body challan,

seizure list, and police papers consistently narrate that the

deceased fell from the train between Jeypore-Chhatriput at

KM 230/07-08. There is no contrary documentary material.

The Tribunal's conclusion, therefore, lacks evidentiary

foundation and is premised on impermissible conjecture.

C. Whether the Deceased Was a Bona Fide Passenger

i. The Tribunal placed decisive reliance on the non-recovery

of the journey ticket. This approach is inconsistent with the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Rina Devi wherein it was held that Loss

of ticket in an accident is a natural and common

consequence. Non-recovery of ticket does not by itself

negate bona fide passenger status.

ii. The Apex Court in Rina Devi further held that bona fide

passengership may be established through oral,

circumstantial, or documentary evidence, and that the

burden on the claimant is only to show preponderance of

probability.

D. Evidence in the present case

i. The Appellant's testimony (AW-1), supported by

contemporaneous police documents, clearly states that the

deceased was travelling from Jagdalpur to Koraput on a

valid ticket in Train No.18448 when he fell due to push and

pull of passengers. None of the documents such as the

seizure list or inquest report cast any doubt on this version.

The Respondent Railways, apart from speculative

assertions in its DRM report, did not adduce any

substantive evidence rebutting the claim.

ii. The Tribunal's conclusion that the deceased was not a

bona fide passenger rests solely on the absence of a

recovered ticket and its disbelief of the Appellant's

testimony--reasons that cannot survive in light of the

binding ratio of Rina Devi. Once the claimant's version is

corroborated by official police papers and is unrebutted by

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

cogent material, bona fide passenger status must be

accepted. A close examination reveals that the Tribunal's

findings were based on: (i) an incorrect assumption that

injuries from an accidental fall cannot resemble those

caused by a run-over; (ii) undue reliance on non-recovery

of ticket; (iii) an excessively sceptical evaluation of the

applicant's oral testimony; (iv) failure to recognize that

documentary evidence uniformly supports the claim.

iii. Such an approach runs contrary to the humanitarian

nature of the legislation and the binding precedents of the

Supreme Court. The Tribunal substituted speculation for

evidence, and conjecture for statutory presumptions.

iv. Once the documentary record attributed the death to a fall

from a moving train--and no exception under the proviso

to Section 124A was established--the Tribunal ought to

have allowed the claim.