[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Madhumita Behera 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: 01-Dec-2025 16:25:20




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            FAO No.326 of 2017
   (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987)


     Madhumita Behera                           ....                  Appellant(s)
                                     -versus-
     Union of India                             ....               Respondent (s)

   Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

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

     For Respondent (s)          :                   Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, 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. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment

and award dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in OA(IIU) No. 101 of 2013, whereby

the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the

Appellant seeking compensation on account of the untimely death of

the deceased in an alleged "untoward incident" within the meaning of

Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The

Appellant contends that the impugned judgment suffers from serious

errors of law and appreciation of evidence, warranting the interference

of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

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

(i) The Appellant has preferred the present appeal calling into question

the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated

21.08.2017 passed by the Ld. Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar Bench in OA(IIU) No. 101 of 2013. By the said

judgment, the learned Tribunal rejected the claim application

instituted by the Appellant for grant of statutory compensation

arising out of the unfortunate and untimely death of the deceased,

allegedly caused by an "untoward incident" as defined under

Section 123(c), read with the strict-liability mandate embodied in

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Appellant further

assert that the impugned judgment stands vitiated by patent errors

of law, misappreciation of material evidence on record, and an

unduly restrictive interpretation of the statutory scheme envisaging

benevolent compensation. It is therefore urged that such infirmities

cumulatively warrant the appellate interference of this Court to

secure the ends of justice.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following

submissions in support of her contentions:

(i) Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that when the

Appellant was travelling from Cuttack to Kharagpur via

Janasatabdi Express bearing Train No.12704 he died on 11.04.2013

due to an untoward incident. It was contended that the

documentary evidence placed before the learned Tribunal,

namely the post-mortem report, the inquest report, and the final

form submitted by the Investigating Agency unequivocally

establish that the deceased had fallen from the running train

while travelling in the train in question. Despite the clear

evidentiary value of these contemporaneous official documents,

the learned Tribunal failed to accord due consideration to them

and in a manner contrary to law, rejected the claim petition.

According to Ld. counsel, such non-consideration of vital

evidence has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

(ii) It was further urged that the Appellant had produced sufficient

material before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the death

squarely fell within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as

defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The

Respondent-Railways, on the other hand, did not produce a single

piece of contrary documentary evidence nor adduced any rebuttal

oral testimony. In the absence of any contesting material from the

Respondent, the Appellant's evidence ought to have been

accepted. However, the learned Tribunal, by rendering a

mechanical and unreasoned finding, erroneously concluded that

the incident did not constitute an "untoward incident," thereby

acting contrary to the statutory scheme and settled judicial

principles.

(iii) Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.2, who had

accompanied the deceased to the railway station, categorically

deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket

from the ticket counter and that P.W.2 himself had purchased a

platform ticket. P.W.2 had also stated that he saw the deceased

while boarding the train. This testimony remained wholly

unchallenged, as the Respondent/Railways neither disputed the

version of P.W.2 nor led any rebuttal evidence. Consequently, it

stood conclusively established that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger at the time of the incident. The Tribunal, however,

ignored this unimpeached evidence and erroneously cast doubt

on the deceased's status as a passenger.

(iv) Learned counsel further submitted that the concept of an

"untoward incident," introduced through the legislative

amendment to the Railways Act, creates a strict-liability

framework under Section 124-A, wherein negligence, either on the

part of the Railways or the victim, is rendered irrelevant, except in

circumstances falling under the limited exceptions carved out in

the proviso to Section 124-A. Thus, once it is shown that the

passenger was bona fide and the death resulted from an incident

enumerated under Section 123(c), the Railways' liability to pay

compensation becomes absolute. The Tribunal, despite the

availability of sufficient documentary and oral evidence

supporting the Appellants' case, erroneously applied standards

extraneous to the statutory framework and rejected the claim.

(v) It was also submitted that Sections 123 and 124-A are welfare-

oriented provisions, forming part of a beneficial legislation

intended to provide expeditious relief to victims of railway

accidents or their dependents. Therefore, these provisions warrant

a liberal interpretation to advance their remedial purpose.

Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal placed unwarranted

emphasis on assumptions unsupported by the pleadings or

evidence of the Railways, while simultaneously disregarding the

cogent material produced by the claimants. Such an approach

defeats the very object of the legislation. As the claimants had

successfully proved the essential ingredients of their case, the

Tribunal's decision to dismiss the claim petition and awarding no

compensation is patently illegal and warrants interference.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

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

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It was contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger

of the alleged train on the date of the incident, as no journey ticket

was recovered from his possession. In the absence of a valid travel

ticket, the statutory presumption in favour of the claimant cannot

arise, and therefore the Appellant has failed to discharge the

initial burden of establishing that the deceased was travelling by

the train in question.

(ii) Learned Counsel submitted that during the inquest proceedings,

no journey ticket was recovered from the clothing or belongings of

the deceased, nor was any such ticket produced before the learned

Tribunal. In the absence of the most crucial and primary evidence,

viz. the ticket, the claim that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger remains wholly unsubstantiated.

(iii) Placing reliance on the DRM Report, it was argued that the

inquest over the body of the deceased revealed the recovery of only

a Nokia mobile phone (SIM No. 9858515113) and a machine-

generated stand ticket for a vehicle bearing registration No. OR-

05C-7990 dated 11.04.2013. Significantly, no railway journey ticket

was found on the person of the deceased. According to the

Respondent, this clearly demonstrates that the deceased was not

travelling in the alleged train. Further, the DRM Report indicates

that there was no jerk, no abnormal movement, no crowd-related

disturbance, and no contemporaneous report of any untoward

incident from any source. Thus, the alleged fall from a running

train is neither corroborated by facts nor supported by the enquiry

materials.

(iv) Based on the evidence gathered by the Enquiry Officer, it was

submitted that the deceased had never boarded the Janasatabdi

Express, and therefore the allegation that he fell from the said

running train is unsustainable. The Respondent further contended

that the cause of death was attributable entirely to the negligence

of the deceased himself, thereby bringing the case within the

exceptions enumerated under the proviso to Section 124-A of the

Railways Act. On this basis, it was argued that no liability can be

fastened on the Railways.

(v) Learned Counsel further drew attention to the statement of Sanjib

Kumar Sahu, JE/OHE, who, while on official duty, discovered the

dead body of a male aged about 40 years lying on the left side of

the track, with the head and torso lying separately. The head was

found on the left side of the down line, while the body was lying

inside the track. According to the Respondent, this physical

configuration of the corpse unmistakably indicates a case of run-

over or suicide, and not a fall from a train. The Respondent submits

that the evidence of the JE/OHE, coupled with the contents of the

DRM Report, conclusively negates the Appellants' plea and

establishes that the claim has no merit. Hence, it was urged that the

appeal be dismissed.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. Upon a consideration of the pleadings and the evidentiary materials

placed on record, the learned Tribunal framed five issues for

determination and proceeded to adjudicate them upon a detailed

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both

sides.

6. The Ld. Tribunal ultimately dismissed the claim petition on the

foundational ground that the Appellant had failed to establish that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger of the alleged train. The Tribunal

held that the absence of a journey ticket, either recovered from the

body during inquest or produced during trial, rendered the Appellant

unable to prove lawful travel by the deceased. Consequently, in its

assessment, the primary ingredient for attraction of Sections 123(c) and

124-A of the Railways Act stood unfulfilled.

7. The Tribunal placed significant reliance on the Respondent's specific

plea that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the

deceased during the inquest and, therefore, the deceased had no

authority to be within railway premises or on the train. According to

the Respondent, the absence of such a ticket conclusively indicated

that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

8. The Tribunal further referred to the Railway Investigation Report,

which recorded that during a physical search of the body in the

presence of witnesses, only a Nokia mobile phone (bearing No.

9858515113) and a motorcycle stand ticket for Vehicle No. OR-05-C-

7990 dated 11.04.2013 were recovered. No railway journey ticket was

found. The Tribunal treated this fact as decisive and observed that,

had the deceased actually been travelling in the train as alleged, the

journey ticket would reasonably have been found along with the other

personal articles recovered during the inquest.

9. The Tribunal also disbelieved the testimony of A.W.2, who claimed to

be the son-in-law of the deceased and who had purportedly

accompanied the deceased to the station. The Tribunal found his

deposition unreliable and insufficient to establish that the deceased

had purchased a journey ticket or had boarded the train. On this basis,

the Tribunal held that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden

of proving that the deceased had suffered an accidental fall from the

running train.

10. The Tribunal took note of the voter identity card produced by the

applicant, which showed that she was indeed the wife of the deceased,

thereby establishing her dependency. However, it observed that this

fact had no bearing on the entitlement to compensation, since the basic

prerequisites for invoking Sections 123(c) and 124-A, especially, the

proof of bona fide travel and occurrence of an untoward incident was

not satisfied in light of its findings under Issues 1, 2, and 3.

11. On the overall assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that

the incident could not be brought within the ambit of an "untoward

incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It held

further that the case fell within the statutory exceptions under the

proviso to Section 124-A, as the deceased could not prove to be a bona

fide passenger and the alleged accidental fall was established.

12. In view of these findings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim

petition, holding that the Railway Administration bore no liability to

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

was passed.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

13. In the present case, the Appellant produced contemporaneous official

documents (i.e. the post-mortem, inquest report and final form) and

uncontradicted oral testimony of P.W.2 which suggested that the

deceased purchased a journey ticket and boarded the train. These

materials, taken together, architects a prima facie case that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger who sustained fatal injuries

during the course of travel. The IO concluded that the deceased fell

from the running train which was never rebutted.

14. The Tribunal's reliance on the non-recovery of a ticket as a talismanic,

conclusive fact was therefore misplaced: in fatal railway incidents

personal effects and tickets are often displaced or destroyed, and the

absence of a ticket especially where the claimant's witness remains

unshorn by effective cross-examination and where the Railway

produced no contemporaneous passenger chart, ticket-checking

record, or other documentary evidence to contradict the claimant

cannot by itself negate bona fide travel. Equally, the Ld. Tribunal's

acceptance of speculative inferences drawn from the position of the

body and the DRM Reportto the effect that decapitation or separation

of head and torso necessarily indicates run-over or suicide. It was an

exercise in conjecture and incompatible with the evidentiary standards

required to bring a case within the proviso to Section 124-A; the onus

to establish exceptions such as suicide, self-infliction, or criminality

lies squarely on the Railway and was not discharged herein by cogent

and admissible proof. The Supreme Court has held in catena of

judgments that severe mutilation is not inconsistent with accidental

fall from a train

15. When the whole of the corpus of evidence read together with the post-

mortem and inquest records are consistent with an accidental fall from

a running train. The only direct eyewitness account supporting travel

was left unrebutted, and the Railway adduced no positive material to

show absence of travel or that the death fell within any exception.

Under these circumstances, the statutory presumption in favour of

claimants should have operated. No suicide note, witness account,

behavioural indication or forensic marker exists to show suicide.

Therefore, these exceptions do not apply. Accordingly, the death is

required to be treated as an "untoward incident" under Section

123(c)(2).

16. The Ld. Tribunal should have applied the beneficial principle of the

Act rather than elevating an isolated factual lacuna into a

determinative finding of law. For these reasons, the Tribunal's

findings reveal an improper appreciation of material evidence, a

misapplication of the legal standards governing Sections 123 and 124-

A, and a failure to follow the purposive, claimant-protective approach

mandated by precedent. The Tribunal's decision is therefore vitiated

and calls for appellate interference to reinstate the claim and direct

appropriate relief consistent with the statutory scheme and the

evidence on record.

17. This Court, on a holistic appraisal of the record, is persuaded that the

Tribunal's conclusion is legally unsustainable and must be set aside.

The statutory scheme created by Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the

Railways Act is welfare-oriented and imposes a no-fault, strict liability

in favour of bona fide passenger subject only to narrowly drawn

exceptions. This remedial purpose requires a liberal construction of

"untoward incident" and an evidentiary approach that does not

convert the claimant's burden into an impossible standard of proof.

VI. CONCLUSION:

18. In view of the above elaborated in the foregoing analysis, this Court is

of the considered view that the impugned judgment and award dated

21.08.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar Bench in OA(IIU) No. 101 of 2013 cannot be sustained in

the eyes of law. The findings of the Tribunal regarding (i) the alleged

absence of bona fide travel, and (ii) the incident not constituting an

"untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, stand

vitiated by misappreciation of evidence, misapplication of statutory

provisions, and a failure to apply the liberal and beneficial

interpretation mandated by binding judicial precedents.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated

21.08.2017 is quashed and set aside.Parties shall bear their own costs.

20. The deceased having been held to be a bona fide passenger and the

incident having been found to be an "untoward incident" within the

meaning of Section 123(c)(2), the Appellant is entitled to statutory

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

Accordingly, the Respondent/Union of India (Railways) is directed to:

a. Deposit the compensation amount of ₹8,00,000/- along with

interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three (3) months

from the date of this judgment;

b. The amount shall be deposited before the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, for disbursal to the Appellant(s) in

accordance with law;

c. In case of failure to deposit within the stipulated period, the

amount shall carry enhanced interest @ 9% per annum

thereafter till payment.

d. The claimant(s) may be allowed to withdraw 50% of the

awared amount within two months from today and rest of the

amount be deposited in an interest bearing account.