[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dhaneswar Bhainsal & Anr 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. 37 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Dhaneswar Bhainsal & Anr. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sambit Das, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-19.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and
order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity) in
O.A.(IIU) No.84 of 2017 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 14.07.2011 , the deceased Phulla Bhainsal was travelling from
Raipur to Kantabanji Railway Station in a diverted train Korba-
Thiruvantapuram Express Train, due to push and pull of co-
passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the
running train near Khariar Road Station Yard, as a result she
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 GROP, Kantabanji registered UD Case No. 14/2011 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 a consideration of pleadings, the Tribunal concluded that the
victim was not a bona fide passenger and that no untoward
incident had occurred. Consequently, the claim application was
dismissed.
(iv) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020
passed in O.A. No. 84 of 2017 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 Claims Tribunal, 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 Appellants further contended that the deceased had fallen
near Khariar Road from the alleged train at Platform No. 1. In
urged that, despite the existence of the RPF Diary entry and the
Station Master Memo- both of which disclose the name of the then
SMR, Khariar Road and RPF personnel involved in the inquiry-the
said officials were not produced, thereby weakening the case.
(iv) Appellants No.1, husband of the deceased, and Appellant No.2,
the son of the deceased, appeared before the Tribunal filed
affidavit in support of the claim. They were duly cross examined
by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Railway
Administration. The Appellants explained that their inability to
produce the co-passenger as witness, stating that he had
unfortunately passed away two years earlier.
(v) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants
have produced sufficient materials to establish that the deceased
was travelling from Raipur to Kantabanjhi 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 22.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 84 of 2017 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 her 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 1
and A.W-2, as their depositions 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, A.W.2, son of the deceased, stated in his
affidavit that he came to know of his mother's disappearance from his
cousin brother and from local residents of Khariar Road, who
informed him that she had fallen from a train on 15.07.2011. He
further deposed that his cousin brother had accompanied the
deceased to Raipur Medical College and Hospital and was returning
from Raipur on 14.07.2011, when he learned that the deceased had
gone missing somewhere near Khariar Road. A.W.2. stated that, upon
receiving this information, he arranged a vehicle that night and
commenced a search for his mother, and on 15.07.2011 he received
information that she had fallen from the train.
8. The Tribunal noted that A.W.1, the husband of the deceased, in his
statement recorded by RPF, deposed that on 14.07.2011 his wife had
proceeded to Khariar for treatment, as she was under the care of a
private doctor who required her to report fortnightly for medical
check-ups. When she did not return, he searched for her but was
unable to trace her. Subsequently, he received information from on-
duty Station Master, Khariar Road, that a female dead body was lying
in the Khariar Railway Station yard and that the same had been
shifted to the Govt Hospital for post-mortem. He immediately
proceeded to the hospital and identified the body kept at mortuary as
that of his wife.
9. The Tribunal observed that certain inconsistencies in the applicant's
version. While the applicant stated that on 14.07.2011 his wife had
gone for the treatment, his affidavit as A.W.1 records that his nephew
had accompanied her, that both had purchased the ticket, and that it
was his nephew who informed him about being missing. However, in
the statement recorded by the RPF, he stated that when his wife did
not return by the evening of 14.07.202, he searched for his wife at
Lathore Station but could not trace her. He further stated that on
15.07.2011 he went to Khariar and met the doctor, and it was
thereafter that he received information from on-duty Station Master
regarding a female dead body lying at the Khariar Railway Station
yard, which had been shifted by the GRPS, Kantabanji.
10. It is further observed that if the nephew had indeed accompanied the
deceased, there would have been no necessity for the applicant to
contact the doctor to ascertain her whereabouts. This material
contradiction casts serious doubt on the applicant's version, indicating
that he has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and that
facts narrated by him are inconsistent and unreliable.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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:
14. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the materials on
record.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
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."
19. 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.
20. This Court observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989
creates a no-fault liability on the part of the Railway
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
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 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".
21. 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.
22. It is observed that the police investigation and GRPS records
indicate that the deceased fell down from the running train near
Khariar Road Railway Station Yard. 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.
(2008) 9 SCC 527
23. 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 Appellants sufficiently
discharges the initial burden of proof and establishes a strong
presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
24. The Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the inconsistent statements
of A.W.1 and 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.
25. 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:
26. In In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment
dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 84 of 2017 cannot be sustained in law and
hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the deceased Phulla
Bhainsal, met her 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.
27. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
28. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four 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.
29. 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.
30. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th November, 2025/
