Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 10649 Ori

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. 45 of 2020

    (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
    Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
    Jugeshwar Samarath @ Laxman                ....                 Appellant(s)
    Samarath
                                    -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. Darpan Pattnaik, Sr. P.C.

              CORAM:
              DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                  DATE OF HEARING:-25.11.2025
                 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

  Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and

order dated 29.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity)

in O.A./(IIU)/ MCC No. 217 of 2015 dismissing his 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)     On31.06.2015, the deceased Smt. Pushpa Jugeshwar was

travelling in Gondia-Jharsuguda Passenger Train, due to push

and pull of co-passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally

fell from the running train in between Raigarh and Jharsuguda

Railway Station, as a result he sustained fatal injuries and died

on the same day. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and

the ticket was lost during the course of the incident.

(ii) 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) The appellants, thereafter, instituted OA/(IIU)/MCC No.217 of

2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under

Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987,

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity, seeking

compensation under Section 124A of the Railway Claims

Tribunal Act, 1989, on account of the death of the deceased,

allegedly occasioned by an "untoward incident".

(iv) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed five issues

for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded

that the victim died to his own negligence and was not a bona

fide passenger. The claim application was, accordingly,

dismissed.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019

passed in OA/(IIU)/MCC No.217 of 2015 by the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellants preferred 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) The Appellant 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 Appellant 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 witness testimony or substantive

proof, cannot from the sole basis for denying the claim.

(iii) It is well-settled proposition of law that the Appellants are not

required to strictly establish that the untoward incident occurred

due to any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the

Railway Administration. In the present case, no such plea was

adavanced nor was any such fact established by the Respondent.

Hence, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the settled

position of law.

(iv) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants

have produced sufficient materials to establish that the deceased

was travelling in a passenger train, 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.

(v) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned judgment

dated 29.10.2019 passed in O/(IIU)/MCC No.217 of 2015 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) In cases arising out of "untoward incidents", the initial

evidentiary burden indisputably rests upon the claimant to

establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory

presumptions of accidental causation of death as envisaged

under Section 124A of the Act. From the circumstances

surrounding the alleged death, it does not appear to be a case of

accidental fall from a running train but indicates a suicidal run

over. Such conduct falls within the exceptions contemplated

under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and, therefore, no

liability can be fastened upon the Respondents.

(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 observed that the Appellants seen to be

motivated by an ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather

than being based on truthful narration of facts. Hence, her

testimony could not be accorded any probative and was rightly

discarded as unreliable.

(iv) The Appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of

establishing that deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling

with a valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. The

physical examination of the deceased's dead body and his

belongings does not indicate the recovery of any travel ticket

therefrom. So, the statutory liability under Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989 remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the claim

application is rendered untenable in law and not maintainable.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

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.

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. It was further observed that the victim is stated to have been

travelling in a passenger train, the ticket alleged to have been

purchased by her has not been produced, and its whereabouts

remains unknown. A.W.1, the husband of the deceased, is

admittedly not a direct witness to the purchase of the said ticket by

the deceased.

8. It is noted that, in connection with the alleged accidental fall, the

GRP handed over the golden nose pin, sari, slippers and other

personal articles worn by the deceased, which were duly recovered

from her possession. Had the deceased been possession of a valid

ticket, the same would reasonably have been expected to be

recovered along with other belongings. This shows that the deceased

not in possession of any ticket or travelling authority during the

course of journey.

9. The Respondents further submitted that, although the statutory

investigation report records the cause of the death as an accidental

falling down from the running train, it could not be established as to

which particular train the deceased was travelling in at the relevant

time. It is also noted that the Train Guard and Loco Pilot, in their

respective statements, have categorically stated that no alarm chain

pulling occurred during the working hours from Bilaspur to

Jharsuguda, except Jamgaon Railway Station. At the location of the

alleged incident, i.e, HGR Railway Station, no jerk was experienced,

nor was any complaint received by the Station Master or

communicated to the Loco Pilot regarding any untoward incident.

10. 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.

11. The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the

Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) Report, observing that the

same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants that

the same remain unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants

during the course of the proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, treated

the said report as a material piece of corroborative evidence

supporting the Respondents' contention that the deceased was not a

bona fide passenger and that no incident of accidental fall from a

running train had in fact occurred. This uncontroverted report, in the

considered view of the Tribunal, lent substantial credence to the

Respondents' version and consequently fortified the ultimate

conclusion leading to dismissal of the claim application.

12. Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the

applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it

unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and

relief. The claim application was thus dismissed.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

13. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

14.The central questions that arise for consideration are:

(a) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

(b) Whether the incident amounts to an 'untoward incident' within the

meaning of Section 123)(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989?

(c) Whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by

reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?

A. Legal Position: Liability under Section 124-A

(i) Section 124-A embodies a regime of no-fault liability, under

which, once it is established that the death or injury resulted

from an "untoward incident", the entitlement to compensation

follows as a statutory consequence, irrespective of any

negligence or default on the part of the Railway

Administration. The liability is excluded only in the limited

contingencies contemplated in the proviso (suicide or

attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, the victim's own

criminal act, intoxication or insanity and injury arising from

natural causes or disease). The legislative scheme thus

consciously shifts the focus from attributing fault to

establishing causation

(ii) The Supreme Court has consistently held that an accidental

fall from a train squarely constitutes an "untoward incident". It

has further clarified that recovery of a journey ticket is not a

sine qua non where the surrounding circumstances reasonably

probabilise that the passenger was travelling by train. Once the

claimant establishes a credible foundational case, the burden

shifted to the Railways to demonstrate that the occurrence falls

within one of the excepted categories enumerated in the

proviso to Section 124.

(iii) This legal position has been reiterated in a catena of

decisions, particularly in Union of India v. Rina Devi1,

wherein it was observed that:

"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.

(2019) 3 SCC 572

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."

The Tribunal is therefore required to adopt a pragmatic and victim-

centric approach, in consequence with the beneficial object of the

statute.

B. Bona fide passenger: standard and burden

(i) The Tribunal insisted proof "beyond doubt" of travel by a

particular train and of the possession of a valid ticket. Such a

standard is legally untenable. Proceedings before the Railway

Claims Tribunal are summary and compensatory in nature, not

criminal and the appropriate test is that of preponderance of

probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) In the present case, the journey ticket No. was duly produced

by the Appellants before the Tribunal but the Tribunal's

conclusion that the ticket was 'planted' by the Appellants is

unsupported by any pleading or evidence on record. By

introducing a third version of its own and returning a finding

that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal

has travelled beyond the scope of the case. Such finding is

unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

C. Untoward incident

(i) The Tribunal faulted the Appellant for not examining co-

passengers and further opined that the journey ticket has been

subsequently planted. Neither omission is fatal in a summary

compensation regime, especially when the contemporaneous

official records consistently indicate a railway fall. The law

does not demand perfect evidence; it requires a reliable

preponderance of probability. The DRM report and police

papers, read in conjunction with the location of the body and

the nature of injuries recorded therein, furnish sufficient basis

to infer an accidental fall, particularly in the absence of any

plea or proof suggesting suicide, intoxication, insanity, or any

element of mens rea constituting a "criminal act" on the part of

the victim.

(ii) The Court observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act,

1989 creates a no-fault liability on the part of the Railway

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, held that

"........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

(2008) 9 SCC 527

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".

(iii) The Act compensates the incident, not the claimant's precision

in train nomenclature. On a calibrated appraisal, this Court

conclude as follow:

(a) The Appellant have established, on the touchstone of

preponderance of probabilities, that the deceased was a

bona fide passenger who accidentally fell from a running

train on 31.06.2015 at KM. No.548/20-18 in between

Raigarh and Jharsuguda Railway Station. The occurrence

squarely constitutes an "untoward incident" within the

meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.

(b) The Railways, on the other hand, have failed to discharge

the statutory burden of bringing the case within any

exceptions enumerated under Section 124-A. The

Tribunal's dismissal of the claim, predicated upon rigid

evidentiary exceptions and conjectural suspicion, stands in

derogation of the benevolent object of the legislation and

the settled principles governing its interpretation.

15. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present

case, it becomes evident that, notwithstanding certain minor

discrepancies in the evidentiary record, a judicious and balanced

evaluation of the material unmistakably tilts the scale in favour of

the Appellants. The case set up by the Appellants rests on a firmer

legal foundation, whereas the Railway Administration has failed to

discharge the evidentiary burden incumbent upon it to bring the

occurrence within any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. While the Appellants have

satisfactorily discharged their initial burden, the corresponding onus

that thereafter shifted to the Railway Administration has remained

wholly unfulfilled.

VI. CONCLUSION:

16. In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded

hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

judgment dated 29.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar in OA/(IIU)/MCC No. 217 of 2015 cannot be sustained

in law and hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the

deceased Smt. Pushpa Jugeshwar Samarath, 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.

17. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

18. 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.

19.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.

20.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th Nov., 2025/