Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... vs Union Of India on 7 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: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.223 of 2021
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,
1987.)
Arjun Jaipuria @ Aruna .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Satya Narayan Pattanaik, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-28.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-07.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the order dated
11.01.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. (IIU) No. 298 of 2017.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The appellant is the son of the deceased. While his father was
travelling from Rourkela to Sambalpur by Train No. 78103 as a bona
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
fide passenger, he accidentally fell down from the running train
near Sarala Railway Station and died on the spot.
(ii) On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the appellant filed a claim
application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of ₹8,00,000/- along
with interest from the respondent.
(iii) On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as
many as five issues for adjudication of the claim application.
(iv) In order to substantiate his case, the appellant examined himself as
A.W.1 and exhibited several documents, including police papers, in
support of his claim. The respondent, on the other hand, produced
the DRM report along with police papers in support of its defence.
(v) Upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Tribunal
dismissed the claim application vide order dated 11.01.2021.
(vi) Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the
learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in
O.A. (IIU) No. 298 of 2017, the appellant has preferred the present
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 contended that the impugned judgment passed by
the learned Tribunal is based on surmises and conjectures rather
than on the materials available on record, and as such, the same is
liable to be set aside.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) The appellant contended that, in order to substantiate his case, he
had adduced cogent and convincing evidence, whereas no rebuttal
evidence was produced by the respondent. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal committed gross illegality in dismissing the original
application in an erroneous and perverse manner by attaching
undue weight to minor discrepancies appearing in the oral
evidence.
(iii) The appellant further contended that the evidence on record clearly
establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that,
during the course of his journey, he accidentally fell down from the
running train. This fact is evident from the final report, inquest
report, post-mortem report, and the oral evidence adduced from the
side of the appellant. However, the learned Tribunal failed to
appreciate these materials while deciding the issues and instead
proceeded on mere presumptions, placing undue reliance on the
DRM report, which was prepared one year after the occurrence and
subsequent to the filing of the claim application.
(iv) The appellant submitted that, in support of his case, he had
adduced oral evidence and produced police reports which clearly
suggested that the deceased died as a result of falling down from
the running train. On the other hand, the respondent did not
adduce any evidence to rebut the same. Be that as it may, even the
DRM report, which was prepared by an agent of the respondent
much after the accident and subsequent to the receipt of summons
from the learned Tribunal, does not disclose any material to indicate
that the deceased had committed suicide or that the death occurred
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
due to his own negligence. In such circumstances, the learned
Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim application by properly
appreciating the materials available on record and by applying the
maxim res ipsa loquitur and the doctrine of strict liability.
(v) The appellant contended that it is well settled in law that when a
person meets with an accident by falling down from a running train
and dies on the spot, it is not ordinarily possible for the legal
representatives to produce the journey ticket or any valid travel
authority. Therefore, on that ground alone, the entitlement to
receive compensation cannot be denied.
(vi) The appellant contended that it is well settled in law that the
claimant or appellant is not required to strictly prove that the
untoward incident occurred due to any wrongful act, negligence, or
default on the part of the Railway Administration. The only ground
on which the Railways can escape or avoid liability is if it is
established that the injured or deceased suffered on account of his
own criminal act. In the present case, no such plea was taken nor
any evidence adduced by the respondent to that effect. On the
contrary, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with
the opinion of the doctor, clearly establishes that the deceased died
in the course of his journey. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal
and contrary to the settled position of law.
(vii) The appellant contended that there is no evidence on record to
suggest that the deceased died due to his own fault or that he was
in a state of intoxication or insanity at the time of the incident. His
fall from the train was, therefore, clearly accidental in nature.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(viii) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has dismissed
the claim application on technical grounds by virtually creating a
third case, which was never pleaded by either party. The question
as to whether there was any negligence or lack of prudence on the
part of the victim is a matter of evidence, and the burden to establish
the same squarely rests upon the Railways. However, there is
nothing on record either to suggest or to prove that there was any
negligence or want of prudence on the part of the deceased.
(ix) The appellant further contended that, while adjudicating a railway
accident case, the doctrine of strict liability is squarely applicable.
Hence, the impugned order is illegal, irregular, and irrational, and
is liable to be set aside.
(x) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal misdirected
itself while passing the impugned order and proceeded to
scrutinize the evidence as if it were a civil court.
(xi) The appellant contended that the Legislature established the
Railway Claims Tribunal with the object of providing substantial
justice to victims of railway accidents. The Act being a piece of
benevolent legislation, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the
claim case on flimsy grounds or by adopting a hyper-technical
approach.
(xii) The appellant contended that he is entitled to receive compensation
of at least ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interest
at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the
date of payment.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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) The deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was
recovered from his 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) Reliance was placed on the DRM's investigation report to contend that
there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and no evidence to establish
that the deceased was a victim of a railway accident. It was further
denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in view of the non-
recovery of any valid journey ticket from his possession.
(iii) During the course of inquiry, the on-duty Train Guard and Loco Pilot of
the said train denied having witnessed or received any report regarding
the alleged fall of a passenger from their train.
(iv) During the inquest, one pair of black plastic chappals, one white cap,
and one blue lungi were recovered, along with an old and illegible
railway ticket found approximately six feet away from the spot. The
details of the "from" and "to" stations as well as the date of issue on the
said ticket were not legible.
(v) If the deceased had actually travelled in the train, a valid journey ticket
would have been recovered along with the other articles, and not a faded
and illegible ticket which appeared to have been found nearby. Such
recovery, therefore, does not establish that the deceased had travelled
by the alleged train. The plea of selective loss of the journey ticket, as
taken in the original application, is not acceptable.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
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 observed that the applicant, who was examined as A.W.1,
had no direct knowledge of the manner in which the alleged accident
occurred. It was his case that his father, while travelling from Rourkela
to Sambalpur by Train No. 78103, accidentally fell down near Sarala
Railway Station and died on the spot. The Tribunal, however, noted that
the cousin of A.W.1, who allegedly purchased the ticket for the
deceased, was not examined, nor was any material placed on record to
substantiate the said plea.
7. The Tribunal further found discrepancies between the pleadings and the
evidence, particularly with regard to the journey ticket. In the original
application, it was stated that the ticket was lost in the incident, whereas
in the affidavit-in-evidence it was claimed that the ticket was recovered
in a soiled and illegible condition. The Tribunal observed that such
inconsistency cast doubt on the veracity of the applicant's version.
8. The evidence adduced by the Railways, including the DRM's
investigation report, revealed that there was no eyewitness to the
alleged fall and that the on-duty Train Guard and Loco Pilot of the
concerned train had categorically denied any such incident. During
inquest, only a pair of black plastic chappals, a white cap, a blue lungi,
and an old illegible ticket were recovered about six feet away from the
spot. The said ticket did not disclose the origin, destination, or date of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
issue, leading the Tribunal to conclude that it could not be connected
with the deceased.
9. The Tribunal reasoned that if the deceased had actually travelled in the
train, a valid journey ticket would have been recovered along with his
other belongings, and not a faded, illegible ticket found nearby. The plea
of "selective loss" of ticket was therefore found to be untenable. The
Tribunal also noted that the applicant, being the sole son of the deceased,
failed to explain why he waited two days before lodging a missing
report, given the short distance between Rourkela and Sambalpur.
10. The Tribunal observed that mere recovery of a dead body on a railway
track does not ipso facto prove that the death occurred due to an
accidental fall from a running train. In the absence of a valid journey
ticket and credible evidence, the claim that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger was not established. The GRPS's final report indicating
accidental fall was treated as being based on assumption and not
constituting conclusive proof.
11. 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.
12. 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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
14. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is pertinent to reiterate the legal
framework governing claims under Sections 123 and 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989.
15. The Railways Act, 1989 envisages a regime of strict liability of the
Railway Administration in the event of death or injury arising out of an
untoward incident. Once the occurrence of such an incident is
established, the Railway is statutorily bound to pay compensation,
irrespective of any negligence or default on its part, unless it successfully
brings the case within one of the exceptions enumerated under the
proviso to Section 124-A, namely, suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal
act, intoxication or insanity, or natural cause.
16. The law is equally well settled that absence of a journey ticket or pass,
by itself, cannot lead to the inference that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger.
17. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1 authoritatively held
that once the claimant produces an affidavit suggesting that the
deceased was a passenger who died in the course of railway travel, the
burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the same or to establish that
the case falls under 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
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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."
18. The principle so enunciated was reiterated in Kamukayi and Others v.
Union of India and Others2.
19. It is further pertinent to note that departmental inquiry reports such as
the DRM report must be contemporaneous and credible. A belated or
perfunctory DRM report prepared months after the occurrence, without
examining primary evidence, carries little probative value and cannot
override contemporaneous police or medical records.
20. In Bhola v. Union of India3, the Delhi High Court observed that delay
in initiating a DRM inquiry is fatal to the evidentiary value of such a
report. It was held:
"4. The claim petition was filed on 27.07.2014, the DRM
Inquiry was initiated thereafter and a report was filed 7
months later. The delay in initiating an inquiry is fatal to the
facts of the case because what essentially needs to be gathered
is what happened on the date of accident. The medical reports
and the police records show that an accident happened on
08.10.2012 and the cause of the accident was, the appellant
having been fallen from a moving train. The DRM Report
does not address any of these aspects. On the contrary it says
that since no ticket was produced to support the claim of the
appellant, of him being a bona fide passenger, therefore by
conjecture, he could have well suffered a self-inflicted injury
(2023) 19 SCC 116.
2018 SCC OnLine Del 13486.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
while crossing the railway tracks. Reliance was placed upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan
Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways,
Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017."
5. The delay in intimation of the DRM Inquiry, the silence
about the specifics of the accident makes the DRM Report of
no consequence..."
21. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid view that a delayed or
speculative departmental report cannot displace contemporaneous
police investigation and medical findings that consistently indicate
accidental fall from a running train.
22. It is further pertinent to note that the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial
and welfare legislation, and the provisions relating to compensation
must be construed liberally so as to advance the object of the statute
rather than defeat it through hyper-technical reasoning.
23. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and Others4, the
Supreme Court held that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation and must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation.
24. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court in Rajni and another v Union of
India and another emphasised that the Railways, as an instrumentality
of the State, cannot defeat legitimate claims by pointing to procedural
imperfections in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses.
It was observed:
"14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section 124-
A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding
proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statutes are
governed by the principles of preponderance and
probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i) possession or
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental
fall from a train, are established through credible material, the
statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in
favour of the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality
of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to
procedural imperfections in investigation or non-
examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would
erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a
social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race."
15. It is therefore declared that where an official railway
inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket
corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident,
such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona
fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway
Administration. The absence of a seizure memo, or the
inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by
itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of
circumstances supports the claimant's version. This
principle shall guide all future tribunals and High Courts in
construing Section 124-A, so that the statutory right to
compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with
the humanitarian purpose of the enactment.
25. Applying the settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is
evident from the materials on record that the appellant produced cogent
evidence, both oral and documentary, establishing that the deceased
died as a result of an accidental fall from Train No. 78103 near Sarala
Railway Station while travelling from Rourkela to Sambalpur. The FIR,
inquest report, post-mortem report, and final police report all
consistently record that the deceased died due to an accidental fall
during the course of travel. These official documents, prepared in the
ordinary course of investigation, corroborate each other and clearly
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
indicate that the death occurred while the deceased was a passenger on
the train.
26. The said documents, being contemporaneous and emanating from
independent public authorities, carry greater evidentiary value than the
speculative conclusions drawn in the DRM report. The said report was
admittedly prepared almost one year after the occurrence and
subsequent to the receipt of summons from the Tribunal. Such a belated
departmental inquiry cannot outweigh the evidentiary worth of
contemporaneous police and medical records forming part of the
statutory record.
27. The learned Tribunal, however, failed to properly appreciate the
material evidence and dismissed the claim by placing undue emphasis
on the non-recovery of a valid journey ticket. The absence or illegibility
of the ticket cannot, by itself, negate the fact of bona fide travel when the
surrounding circumstances and official records clearly establish that the
deceased died in an accidental fall from a running train.
28. In the present case, the recovery of an illegible ticket near the place of
occurrence, coupled with the discovery of the deceased's personal
belongings in close proximity, supports the appellant's version that the
deceased was travelling on the train and accidentally fell during the
journey. The evidence adduced by the appellant sufficiently discharges
the initial burden of proof and establishes a strong presumption that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger.
29. The Railway Administration, on the other hand, failed to bring on record
any credible evidence to show that the deceased was engaged in any
prohibited act or that his death resulted from any of the exceptions
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
contemplated under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
The mere denial of the occurrence by the train guard and loco pilot,
unsubstantiated by any contemporaneous record or inquiry conducted
at the relevant time, does not rebut the presumption of liability arising
against the Railway Administration.
30. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the incident did not constitute
an "untoward incident" is, therefore, unsustainable. Once the accidental
fall and resultant death were proved by reliable evidence, and the
Railways failed to establish any statutory exception, the liability to
compensate under Section 124-A automatically followed.
31. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in scrutinising the claim with
rigidity and dismissing it on technical grounds defeats the very purpose
of this benevolent legislation. The law mandates that compensation in
such cases must be determined on a liberal and humane interpretation
of the evidence, keeping in view the object of the Act to provide relief to
victims of railway accidents.
VI. CONCLUSION:
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the
materials on record. The death of the deceased clearly constitutes an
"untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989, and the appellant, being the son and legal
representative of the deceased, is entitled to compensation under
Section 124-A of the said Act.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
33. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2021 passed by the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. (IIU) No.
298 of 2017 is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
34. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation of
₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellant along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till
the date of actual payment.
35. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 7th November, 2025/
