Orissa High Court
Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India on 14 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: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No. 59 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Jhudhistira Sethy .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. J.B. Mohanty, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenge the judgment and order
dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity) in
O.A.(IIU) No. 177 of 2018 dismissing her claim application for
compensation arising out of the injury 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:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) On 01.06.2018 , the injured in person, Jhudhistira Sethy, a bona
fide passenger, was travelling from Kurla to Karjat Railway
Station by a Local Train, due to push and pull of co-passengers,
he lost his balance and accidentally fell in between Kalyan and
Thakurli Railway Station, as a result he sustained fatal injuries
(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 Original Application No.
177 of 2017 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 injury sustained by the
Appellant, resulting from the "untoward incident".
(iv) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five
issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination,
concluded that the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and
not a victim of any untoward incident. The claim application
was, accordingly, dismissed.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.12.20121
passed in O.A. No. 177 of 2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellant preferred this appeal.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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 Appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar,
dismissing the Original Application in respect of the alleged
untoward incident resulting in the injury of the Appellant is
erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record, and suffers from
gross misappreciation of material facts and legal provisions.
(ii) The Appellants contended that the documentary evidence issued
by the Police Authorities unequivocally establishes that the
Appellant had sustained injuries as a consequence of an untoward
incident. It was argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate or to
take judicial notice of these vital and corroborative evidentiary
materials, which lent credence to the Appellant's case. The
rejection of the claim on the ground that the injuries were self-
inflicted and thus fell within the exceptions enumerated under
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, was asserted to be
erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in law.
(iii) Section 124A of the Railways Act, being a beneficial and welfare
legislation imposes a strict and statutory liability on the Railways
to compensate the Appellants, unless the case falls within the
express statutory exceptions, none of which are applicable here.
Once the injuries results from an untoward incident occurring in
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the course of railway travel, the liability of the Railways to pay
compensation arises ipso facto and automatically.
(iv) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants
have produced sufficient materials to establish that the Appellant
was travelling from Kurla to Karjat Railway Station, and fell from
the running train, sustained injuries. 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) The Appellants further contended that the injured was
immediately shifted to Sai Hospital by the local police, where he
received preliminary medical treatment. He was thereafter
referred to KEM Hospital, Mumbai for further management,
where he was admitted as an indoor patient. Owing to the
grievous crush injuries sustained to his of his left hand and left
leg, extensive treatment became necessary.
(vi) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned judgment
dated 24.12.2021 passed in O.A. No. 177 of 2018 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:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) In cases arising out of "untoward incidents", the initial evidentiary
burden indisputably rests upon the claimant. In the present
matter, the Appellants has failed to satisfactorily discharge this
burden. From the circumstances surrounding the alleged injury, it
does not appear to be a case of accidental fall from a running train
but indicates a self-inflicted injury. 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) A meticulous scrutiny of the contemporaneous documentary
corpus and the surrounding factual matrix militates against the
hypothesis of an accidental fall from a moving train, and
contrarily, yields a preponderant inference of a self-inflicted
injury. Such conduct, being ex facie subsumed within the
exclusionary ambit of the proviso to Section 124A, is statutorily
immunized from the operation of the rule of strict liability that
otherwise attaches under the main provision.
(iii) Upon a reasoned appreciation of the evidentiary record, the
Tribunal rightly disbelieved the testimony of the Appellant and
concluded that the injuries sustained were the consequence of his
own rash and negligent conduct. It was observed that the
Appellant had been travelling in a Local Train and, having failed
to enter the compartment, had undertaken the journey in a
standing position near the doorway. The occurrence being a direct
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
consequence of the Appellant's own fault and criminal negligence,
the Respondents- Railways cannot be held liable for the same.
(iv) The Respondents have further urged, with persuasive force, that
there was no contemporaneous record or report of Alarm Chain
Pulling following the alleged fall , which circumstance materially
undermines the Appellant's narrative and casts serious doubt
upon the authenticity of the claim. In the absence of any cogent,
credible, or corroborative evidence establishing bona fide
passengership, the indispensable precondition for the invocation
of statutory liability under Section 124A Railways Act, 1989,
remains unfulfilled. The claim, thus bereft of the requisite factual
and legal foundation, stands rendered unsustainable and non-
maintainable within the statutory framework, as the sine qua non
for attracting the principle of strict liability is conspicuously
absent.
(i) The Appellant has failed to discharge the essential burden of
establishing that he was a bona fide passenger travelling with a
valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. 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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the
Appellant 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
ravel by the deceased.
7. The Tribunal further stated that the injuries sustained by the
Appellant were attributable to his own rash and negligent conduct. It
was observed that the Appellant had been travelling in a standing
position near the doorway, an act which is inherently unsafe,
impermissible, and fraught with danger. The Tribunal concluded that
the occurrence was the direct and proximate consequence of the
Appellant's own fault and criminal negligence, thereby disentitling
him to any compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act,
1989.
8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances of the case clearly indicated
that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, and not
the result of an accidental fall from the train.
9. Consequently, the occurrence did not constitute an "untoward
incident" within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989. The Tribunal observed that the sine qua non for invoking
Section 124A, namely, proof of an untoward incident during the
course of a bona fide journey, had not been established. It was
therefore concluded that the injury was attributed to the Appellant's
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
own fault, and the Railways stood protected under the exception
clause Section 124A of the Act.
10.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:
11. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
12.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-
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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. 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
(2019) 3 SCC 572
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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) The record discloses that (a) the police promptly registered the
case and the inquest papers specifically refers to a railway fall,
(b) the Appellant was travelling in the local train while standing
near the doorway, and after he falling from the alleged train, he
was immediately shifted to Sai Hospital by the local police,
where he received preliminary medical treatment; and (c) he
was thereafter referred to KEM Hospital, Mumbai for further
management, where he was admitted as an indoor patient. In
view of the grievous crush injuries sustained to his of his left
hand and left leg, extensive treatment became indispensable,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
they give rise to a credible presumption that the Appellant was
travelling by train at the time he fell.
(iii) Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and
Others2, whereunder it has been held that:
"9............................... By the explanation of the said
section classifying about "passenger", it would include a
person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a
train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform
ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi3, has
explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is
found on railway premises.
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
railways 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 relevant facts and
burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be
decided on facts shown or attending circumstances. This
will have to be dealt with form case to case on the basis of
facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand
explained accordingly."
(2023) 19 SCC 116
3 (2019) 3 SCC 572
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iv) In the present case, while it is undisputed that the Appellants
were able to produce the medical report unequivocally recorded
that the Appellant suffered injuries due to the accidental fall
from a running train, thereby sustaining the occurrence as an
untoward incident. In contrast, the Respondents failed to bring
on record any cogent or rebuttal evidence to disprove the claim
and instead relied upon speculative and inconclusive
observations made in the DRM inquiry report, which does not
carry binding evidentiary value in judicial proceedings.
C. Untoward incident
(i) The Tribunal faulted the Appellant for not examining co-
passengers. However, such an omission is not fatal in a
summary compensation regime, particularly when the
contemporaneous official records consistently point towards a
railway fall. The law does not require flawless evidence; it
mnadates a credible preponderance of probability. The police
papers, medical reports, coupled with the nature of the injuries
recorded therein, provide a sufficient foundation to infer an
accidental fall, especially in the absence of any plea pr 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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
"untoward incident." unless the case falls within one of the
enumerated exceptions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar4, 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 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 injured was a bona
fide passenger who accidentally fell from a running train on
01.06.2018 in between Kalyan and Thakurli 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
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
D. Discharging liability with regard to awarded amount:
(i) This Court found that the award rendered by the Learned
Tribunal is not in consonance with the governing legal
principles or the applicable statutory framework.
(ii) In the present case, the disability certificate issued on affidavit
by the Appellant by the Issuing Medical Authority, Ganjam,
Odisha, records that the claimant sustained grievous injuries to
his left leg. The medical evidence on record further establishes
that he has suffered a permanent physical disability assessed at
40%, along with amputation of the left thumb through proximal
phalanx, index, middle and ring finger through
metacarpophalangeal joint.
(iii) Upon calibrated appraisal of the materials on record, this Court
holds that he is entitled to compensation in terms of the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990. Under Part-III(7) of the schedule he is entitled to the
sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of four fingers of one hand.
Additionally, for the permanent physical disability assessed at
40%, he is entitled to Rs. 1,60,000/- as prescribed under the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Schedule. Accordingly, the total amount payable to the
Appellant comes to Rs. 5,60,000 (Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand).
13. 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 Appellant. The case set up by the Appellant 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 Appellant
have satisfactorily discharged their initial burden, the
corresponding onus that thereafter shifted to the Railway
Administration has remained wholly unfulfilled.
VI. CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment
dated 24.12.2021passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
in O.A. No. 177of 2018 cannot be sustained in law and hereby set
aside. It is accordingly declared that theAppellant, 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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
15. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
16. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation
of Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty thousand) to the Appellant
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
accident till the date of actual payment.
17.The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the
Appellant 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.
18.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th Nov., 2025/
