Orissa High Court
Pronab Phukan & Anr 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
F.A.O No. 20 of 2020
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987).
Pronab Phukan & Anr. .... 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) : Ms. Pratima Nayak, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-27.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-07.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order
dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
in OA No.29 of 2015, which dismissed the 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 25.01.2015, the deceased Manik Phukan was travelling from
Jaleswar to Amarda Road by Train No. 15902, Debrugarh-
Yesbantpur Express Train, due to push and pull of co-passengers,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train in
between Jaleswar to Amarda Road, as a result he 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 GRPS, Baleswar registered UD Case No. 06 of 2015 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) The appellants, thereafter, instituted Original Application No. 20 of
2020 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 Railways 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 due 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 01.10.2019
passed in O.A. No. 29 of 2015 by the learned Railways Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the Appellants preferred this
appeal.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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, hence,
suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law.
Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.
(ii) At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework.
Section 124A 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
vrs. Prabhakuran Vijaya Kumar1, where the Supreme Court held
that fault or negligence is irrelevant under the no-fault scheme of
Section 124A.
(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 v. Rina Devi2, wherein the
(2008) 9 SCC 527
(2018) 3 SCC 319
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Supreme Court recognised that in train accident cases, tickets are
frequently lost, misplaced, or destroyed during the incident. 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 Appellants produced the Inquest Report, the
Postmortem Report, and the Final Report, which reveals that the
deceased fell from a moving train and sustained fatal injuries. The
Respondents, however, failed to produce any cogent material to
rebut this evidence, relying instead on mere speculative
observations in the DRM's inquiry. Accordingly, these
circumstances do not establish criminal negligence within the
meaning of Section 124A of the Act.
(v) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants
have produced sufficient materials to establish that the deceased
was travelling from Jaleswar to Amarda Road 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 01.10.2019 passed in O.A. No. 29 of 2015 by the Learned
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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 of untoward incidents, the initial burden of establishing
the claim lies upon the claimant. In the present matter, the
Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. 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 has rightly disbelieved the testimony of A.W-
1, the wife of the deceased , as her deposition lacked credibility and
appeared 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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(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. 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.
(i) 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.
(ii) It was further observed that during the course of the Inquest
Proceedings, no journey ticket was found in the possession of the
deceased. The dead body of the deceased discovered severed into
two parts. Ordinarily, a person who accidentally falls from a
running train owing to its sudden movement or jerk would sustain
multiple injuries such as head trauma and abrasions over various
parts of the body. However, the absence of such injuries in the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
present case raises a grave and significant doubt regarding the
manner of occurrence.
(iii) 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.
(iv) It is further observed that the relationship between the deceased
and that of the alleged family members could not be conclusively
established, as the identification of the dead body remained
doubtful. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to
demonstrate that the body was duly identified by the family
member of the deceased. In the absence of such credible
identification, it cannot be affirmed with any degree of certainty
that the body recovered was indeed that of the deceased.
(v) The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the
Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) Report, noting that the same
remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants that the
same remain unchallenged throughout the proceedings.
Consequently, the Tribunal treated the said report as a material
piece of corroborative evidence substantiating the Respondents'
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that
no accidental fall from a running train had, in fact, occurred. The
Tribunal, therefore, held that the uncontroverted findings
contained in the DRM Report lent substantial weight to the
Respondents' version, thereby reinforcing its ultimate conclusion
which culminated in the dismissal of the claim application.
(vi) 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:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
7. 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?
8. This 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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar3, held that
negligence, even gross negligence, is not a defence available to the
Railways under the provision. Hence, once it is established that the
death occurred due to an "untoward incident" and the person was a
bona fide passenger, compensation becomes payable.
9. The Tribunal rejected the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger on
the ground that no ticket was recovered and no oral evidence was led
by the Appellants. However, in Union of India v. Rina Devi4, the
Supreme Court categorically held that the non- recovery of a ticket is not
conclusive in cases of accidental death involving passengers. The Court
accepted that tickets are often lost in such incidents and permitted
circumstantial and documentary evidence to establish passengership.
10. In the present case, the inquest report, post-mortem report and the final
report consistently record that the deceased died due to fall from a
running train. The police investigation and GRPS records indicate that
the deceased fell down from the running train in between Jaleswar to
Amarda Road Railway Station. No evidence was led by the Railways to
rebut this version or to show that the deceased was trespasser or not
booked for travel. 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
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
11. It is equally well settled that the mere non-recovery of a journey ticket
from the deceased cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof to
dislodge the presumption of bona fide passengership.
12. It may be further observed that once the foundational facts- namely, the
occurrence of death of a passenger in an "untoward incident" and proof
that such passenger was a bona fide passenger- stand duly established on
record, the liability of the Railway Administration became absolute. The
Supreme Court has consistently held that the absence of any wrongful
act, negligence, or default on the part of the Railway Administration is
of no consequence, inasmuch as the said provision embodies the
doctrine of strict liability in unequivocal terms.
13. In the present case, although the Applicants were unable to produce 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 inquest report, post-mortem report, and final investigation
report- each a contemporaneous official prepared in the ordinary course
of public duty- uniformly attest that the deceased met his death from an
accidental fall from a running train. Collectively, this evidentiary matrix
constitutes credible and cogent proof, firmly establishing that the death
occurred in the course of unlawful travel and squarely falls within the
definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989.
14. The Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the positioning of the body, noting
that it was found severed into pieces, and also cast doubt upon the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
relationship between the deceased and the Appellants. However, the
Appellants produced authentic documents, including the PAN Card
and Voter Identity Card, which clearly reveals that they are the sons of
the deceased. The approach adopted by the Respondent in disregarding
such conclusive evidence and deciding the issue against the Appellants
amounts to a gross illegality and a serious miscarriage of justice.
15. 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:
16. In view of the forgoing discussion, and upon a comprehensive appraisal
of the evidence on record, this Court is persuaded to hold that the
findings of the Tribunal, denying the status of bona fide passenger to the
deceased and consequently rejecting the claim, is unsustainable.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated
01.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.
No. 29 of 2019 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
18. The appeal consequently succeeds, the claim is held to be maintainable
in law, and the Respondent- Union of India (Railways) stands statutorily
obligated to pay compensation to the Appellants in conformity with the
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, together with interest as
permissible under law.
19. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
20. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs 8,00,000 (Rupees eight
lakhs) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the
amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be
disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 7th Nov., 2025/
