Orissa High Court
Tulsi Das & Ors 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. 72 of 2019
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987).
Tulsi Das & Ors. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India, represented .... Respondent(s)
through its General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Gobind Ch. Das, Adv
For Respondent (s) : Smt. 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 14.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
in Original Application No.142 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 25.02.2014, the deceased, Bipin Das, was travelling to his home
state (Odisha) holding a valid journey ticket bearing No.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
B05621336, for travel from Kalyan Junction to Kharagpur Junction
by the Geetanjali Express Train.
(ii) During the course of the journey, the deceased went to use the
lavatory, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of
brakes, he lost his balance, his head struck against the door, and he
accidentally fell inside the running train. As a result of the severe
head injury sustained in the fall, he succumbed to his injuries and
passed away thereafter.
(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 142 of
2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under
Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and preferred
a claim under Section 124A of the Act, seeking statutory
compensation on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly
occasioned by an "untoward incident" as contemplated under
Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.
(iv) Upon perusal of the pleadings and evidentiary materials adduced
by the parties, the Learned Tribunal was pleased to frame five
distinct issues for determination. After an elaborate evaluation of
the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal
ultimately returned findings the effect that the deceased did not
qualify as a bona fide passenger nor, could the occurrence be
brought within the statutory ambit of an "untoward incident"
under the Act. On the premises, the Original Application came to
be dismissed as devoid of merit.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018
passed in the Original Application No. 142 of 2015 by the Railways
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, whereby the claim petition was
dismissed, the Appellants have invoked the appellate jurisdiction
of this Court by preferring the present appeal, assailing the legality,
propriety, and sustainability of the impugned order on both factual
and jurisdictional grounds.
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 contended that the dismissal of the Original
Application by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
in connection with the alleged untoward incident resulting in the
death of the deceased, is manifestly against the weight of the
evidences on record. Hence, the impugned judgment and order
warrants interference and is liable to be set aside.
(ii) The Appellants submitted that the deceased was in state of alcoholic
withdrawal and was not under the influence of alcohol at the
material time. The Respondents, however, have sought to
misrepresent the facts by alleging that the deceased's death was the
result of intoxication, a contention which is wholly speculative, and
unsupported by any credible evidence on record.
(iii) The Appellants further submitted the Post-Mortem Report clearly
records the cause of death as cranio-cerebral injury. However, the
Learned Tribunal failed to duly appreciate this material evidence
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and erroneously overlooked the fact that the death resulted from
internal brain injury, and not by any alleged intoxication of the
deceased.
(iv) The Appellants further contended that the Head Constable who
found the deceased in an unconscious state was never examined
during the proceedings. The Learned Tribunal also failed to call for
or consider the relevant documents, including the statement or
report of the attending medical authorities, pertaining to the
treatment administered and the condition of the deceased during his
stay at the hospital.
(v) The Learned Tribunal, without duly appreciating or taking judicial
notice of the attendant factual circumstances reflected in the
evidentiary record, committed a manifest error in rejecting the claim
application on the untenable premise that the death of the deceased
was covered under the statutory exceptions engrafted in the proviso
to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Consequently, the
impugned judgment is ex facie perverse, legally unsustainable, and
is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
(vi) It is further submitted that the testimony of AW-1 and AW-2, clearly
establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The
cumulative evidentiary material on record unmistakably leads to the
conclusion that the deceased accidentally fell inside the train in the
course of travel, thereby squarely brings the occurrence within the
ambit of an "untoward incident" as contemplated under Section
123(c)(2) of the Act.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the
following submissions:
(i) In cases emanating from "untoward incidents", the initial
evidentiary burden indisputably lies upon the claimant to establish
the foundational facts requisites for invoking the statutory
presumption of accidental causation as contemplated under
Section 124A of the Act. In the present case, the Appellants have
not been able to satisfactorily discharge this primary onus.
(ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily
discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon them under Section
124A of the Act. The evidentiary materials bought on record do not
conclusively establish that the death of the deceased resulted from
a fall inside the train; rather, they indicate that the cause of death
was attributed to intoxication. In the absence of proof of these
foundational facts, the alleged occurrence cannot, in law, be
categorized as an untoward incident within the meaning of Section
123(c)(2) of the Act. Consequently, no statutory liability can be
fastened upon the Respondent-Railways to pay compensation
under Section 124-A of the Act.
(iii) The Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimonies of
A.W.1 and A.W.2, as their deposition lacked credibility and were
tainted with exaggeration and material inconsistencies. Upon due
appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal correctly observed that
their statements appeared to be motivated by an ulterior intent to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
secure compensation, rather than constituting on truthful narration
of facts. Hence, their testimony were devoid of probative value and
were rightly discarded as unreliable.
(iv) The appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of
establishing that the deceased was not under the influence of
alcohol at the relevant time. On the contrary, the medical report
clearly indicates that the deceased was habitual consumer of
alcohol, thereby undermining the credibility of the Appellants'
contention to the contrary. Hence, the foundational requirement for
invoking Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, remains
unfulfilled, as the case falls within the exceptions enumerated
under the said provision. Consequently, the claim for
compensation is rendered untenable in law and is liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while dismissing the claim
application, recorded the following key observations and conclusions:
(i) The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the
death of the deceased was not due to falling down inside the train,
but was instead attributable to intoxication. The Tribunal further
noted from the record that the deceased was a habitual consumer of
alcohol, thereby reinforcing its conclusion that the case did not fall
within the ambit of an "untoward incident".
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) It is further observed that, as per the record, the deceased, while
suffering from severe head pain after the said incident, purportedly
returned to his seat and informed his wife about the incident.
However, a serious doubt arises as to the veracity of this claim, for if
the deceased was not in conscious or stable state of mind, it remains
inexplicable how he could have communicated the details of the
incident to A.W.-1, wife of the deceased.
(iii) It is also observed that the relatives of the deceased were not
informed or present immediately after the incident and came to
know the occurrence only through the GRP/Akola. This
circumstance raises a pertinent doubt, for if the deceased was in
unconscious state at the relevant time, it is unclear how the GRP
personnel could have recorded any statement purportedly made by
the patient.
(iv) The Tribunal held that such circumstances, as they stand, do not
substantiate the accidental falling inside the train, and hence, the
incident cannot be categorized as an "untoward incident". Since
establishment of such an occurrence is a sine qua non for claiming
compensation under Section 124A of the Act, this essential condition
remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the case falls within the
exception clause of Section 124A of the Act, thereby absolving the
Railways of statutory liability.
(v) Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the
applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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. The central questions that arise for consideration are:
(i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
(ii) 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?
(iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by
reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
7. This Court observes that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes
a regime of no-fault liability upon the Railway Administration in cases
where death and injury occurs due to an "untoward incident," except
where the case squarely falls within one of the statutory exceptions
enumerated therein. unless the case falls within one of the enumerated
exceptions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar1, 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 victim was a bona fide passenger, the entitlement to compensation
follows as a matter of legal consequence.
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
8. Learned Tribunal entertained a doubt as whether the incident constituted
a falling inside the train, speculating instead that the death might have
been occasioned due to intoxication. However, this Court is of the
considered view that the deceased was in a state of alcoholic withdrawal
and not under the influence of alcohol at the material time. This finding
stands fortified by the Post-Mortem Report, which does not support the
inference of intoxication as the cause of the death.
9. In the present case, the Post-Mortem Report records that the cause of the
death was cranio cerebral injury, signifying a brain injury resulting from a
violent impact to the head. The nature of the injury is consistent with the
version that the deceased sustained the fatal blow while falling inside the
train due to the sudden application of brakes and consequential jerking,
which caused him to be dashed against the door.
10.Upon the question of bona fide passengership, this Court finds that the
Appellants have produced sufficient and credible evidence to establish
that the deceased was travelling on strength of a valid journey ticket. This
fact has not been controverted or effectively rebutted the Respondents at
any stage of the proceeding.
11.The position stands reinforced by the authoritative pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar2, wherein
it was held that the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation and must, therefore, receive a liberal and
purposive interpretation. The Court further observed that adopting a
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
narrow or restrictive construction of the expression 'accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers' under Section-123(c) of the Act,
would frustrate the legislative intent and unjustly numerous bona fide
railway passengers of their legitimate entitlement to compensation in
cases of railway accidents.
12.In the present case, the Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
evidences by the Appellants and has, in a whimsical manner relied upon
the record without due consideration of the material facts and
circumstances. The Tribunal has further erred in disregarding the
findings of the Post-Mortem Report, which are vital to the just
determination of the case. Consequently, the impugnment judgment
suffers from serious infirmities in law and fact and is liable to be set
aside.
13.This Court is of the considered view that, in the instant case, the deceased
was in a state of alcohol withdrawal, and it stands established on record
that he was neither drunk nor intoxicated at the time of the incident.
hence, the case does not fall within any exceptions contemplated under
the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is pertinent to
note that a person undergoing alcohol withdrawal is ordinarily in a stage
of abstinence and reform, and merely branding him as a habitual
consumer of alcohol cannot lead to the presumption that his death
occurred due to intoxication. The Respondents- Railways cannot be
permitted to take such an untenable plea when the evidence clearly
indicates that the death resulted from an accidental fall inside the train,
and the deceased was, beyond doubt, a bona fide passenger.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
14.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the occurrence in
question squarely falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as
defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. None of the statutory
exceptions to liability as enumerated under the said Act, stands attracted
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
VI. CONCLUSION:
15.In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 14.12.2018
passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in
Original Application No. 142 of 2015 cannot be sustained in law and
hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the deceased, Budhu Minj
met his 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.
16.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
17.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.
18.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 7th November, 2025/
