Orissa High Court
Claims Tribunal Act vs Manas Sethi & Ors 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 18:09:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No.948 of 2018
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Union of India .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Manas Sethi & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Soubhagya Chandra Dev Dash, CGC.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Debraj Mohanty,
Mr. B.P. Panda, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-17.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/ the Union of
India, calling in question the judgment and award dated 11.01.2018
rendered by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for
short, "the Tribunal") in O.A. No.88 of 2016, whereby the claim
petition of the Respondents-claimants came to be allowed.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 21.07.2015, while the deceased, Dhanu Sethi, was travelling
from Bhubaneswar to Berhampur by Train No. 12665 (Howrah-
Kanyakumari Express), he is stated to have accidentally fallen
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
from the running train between Chatrapur and Jagannathpur
Railway Stations at Kilometer No. 589/25, owing to a sudden jerk
of the compartment, and died instantaneously at the spot.
Consequent upon the said occurrence, the Government Railway
Police Station, Berhampur, registered an Unnatural Death Case
bearing No. 52 of 2015 dated 21.07.2015 and undertook
investigation into the circumstances of the incident.
(ii) Subsequently, the Respondents-claimants instituted a claim
application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, registered as O.A. No. 88 of
2016, seeking statutory compensation on account of the death of
Dhanu Sethi, son of late Mangulu Sethi and husband of
Respondent No.1. It was averred therein that the death of the
deceased had occurred as a consequence of an "untoward
incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
(iii) The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, by its
judgment and award dated 11.01.2018, allowed the said claim
application and directed the Appellant-Railway Administration
to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) in
accordance with the revised Schedule of Compensation effective
from 01.01.2017, together with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of the order till payment, and, in the event
of default, further interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the
accrued amount from the date of default till realization. The
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Appellant contends that the learned Tribunal rendered the
impugned judgment without due appreciation of evidence,
without adverting to the statutory reports on record, and in a
perfunctory manner leading to a grave miscarriage of justice.
(iv) Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 11.01.2018 passed in O.A. No. 88 of 2016, the Appellant/
Union of India has preferred the present appeal before this
Court, calling in question the legality, propriety, and correctness
of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal.
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 learned Tribunal has fallen into manifest error of law
apparent on the face of the record in failing to address the
foundational question as to whether the occurrence in question
qualifies as an "untoward incident" within the contemplation of
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether any of
the statutory exceptions engrafted under the proviso to Section
124-A stand attracted. The categorical averments contained in the
written statement of the Appellant unmistakably demonstrated
that the deceased neither travelled as a bona fide passenger in the
alleged train nor met his death in the manner projected by the
claimants. The learned Tribunal, however, omitted to frame any
issue on this vital aspect and proceeded to adjudicate the claim in
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
a perfunctory manner. The impugned award, therefore, suffers
from grave jurisdictional infirmity and patent illegality,
rendering it liable to be set aside.
(ii) The learned Tribunal failed to give due weight to the statutory
report submitted by the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda
Road, which unequivocally corroborated the Appellant's stand
that no journey ticket or travel authority was recovered from the
possession of the deceased. The report further disclosed that
there was no material indicating that the train in question
experienced any unusual jerk, overcrowding, or other
disturbance on the date of the alleged occurrence. It also stands
established that there was no eyewitness to the event, nor was
there any contemporaneous intimation from co-passengers,
railway personnel, or the on-duty guard of the train. These
material circumstances, which go to the root of the claim, were
ignored in toto by the learned Tribunal while passing the
impugned order.
(iii) The narrative put forth by the Respondents is wholly
concocted, unsubstantiated, and bereft of any evidentiary
foundation. The testimony of A.W.1 does not even purport to
establish that she witnessed the incident. In the admitted absence
of any journey ticket or travel document, A.W.1 and A.W.2 have
failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the deceased's
bona fide passenger status which is a jurisdictional pre-condition
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
for invocation of the statutory liability under Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989.
(iv) The evidence of R.W.1, read conjointly with the report of the
Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF which
unequivocally establishes that the deceased did not hold a valid
journey ticket; no eyewitness to the alleged fall existed and the
occurrence was not within the knowledge of either the guard or
the driver of the said train. These findings categorically negate
the claimants' version. The learned Tribunal, by disregarding
such probative material, has rendered a finding which is
perverse and unsustainable in law.
(v) The learned Tribunal has further erred in completely overlooking
the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the Appellant
and has instead based its conclusions solely upon the
uncorroborated depositions of the applicant witnesses, which
lack cogency, credibility, and consistency. The non-consideration
of material evidence amounts to a serious error of law and
vitiates the entire adjudicatory process, warranting interference
by this Court.
(vi) The learned Tribunal has also misapplied the ratio of the
decision of the Calcutta High Court in Asharani Das v. Union of
India & Anr1., to the facts of the present case. The said judgment
merely holds that the existence of an FIR, post-mortem report,
and final police report, each confirming accidental death without
2015 SCC OnLine Cal 1674
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
foul play, may indicate an untoward incident. However, in the
instant case, the Appellant had specifically disputed the
deceased's travel as a passenger and had produced
contemporaneous documentary evidence demonstrating that the
deceased neither travelled by, nor fell from, the alleged train. In
such circumstances, reliance on Asharani Das (supra) was
wholly misconceived. The finding that the death resulted from
accidental fall from a running train is therefore perverse,
contrary to record, and unsustainable in the eye of law.
(vii) The learned Tribunal has further erred in enhancing the
compensation to ₹ 8,00,000/- by erroneously invoking the ratio in
Rathi Menon v. Union of India2, on the basis of the amendment
to the Schedule of Compensation which came into force with
effect from 01.01.2017. The claim application having been
instituted in the year 2015, the compensation ought to have been
determined with reference to the Schedule prevailing on the date
of the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Rina Devi3 , has authoritatively laid down that the relevant date
for determination of compensation is the date of the accident, not
the date of adjudication. The learned Tribunal's reliance on the
amended Schedule is thus contrary to settled law and renders the
award legally untenable.
2001(2) Supreme 314
3 (2019) 3 SCC 572
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(viii) In the aforesaid premises, it is submitted that the impugned
judgment and award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 88 of 2016,
being ex-facie illegal, perverse, and contrary to both fact and law,
hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore,
prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present
appeal and grant such further or other reliefs as may be deemed
just and proper in the interest of justice.
(ix) The learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law
apparent on the face of record by not going into the question of
untoward incidents and exceptions contained therein. The very
averments made in the written statement clearly established that
the deceased was not a passenger in the alleged train and also
not died in the manner as alleged. The learned Tribunal has not
framed it as an issue to that effect and has decided the matter in a
most perfunctory manner. The order of the learned Railway
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, therefore, suffers from grave illegality
and is liable to be set aside.
(x) The statutory report of the DRM, Khurda was also relied upon
which fortified the stand that no ticket or travelling authoritywas
found from the possession of the deceased and there was no
evidence to prove that the said train was heavy rush or jerk on
the alleged date. It is further established that, there is no eye
witness to the incident and explainthe circumstances leading to
the event and there was no information either from co-passenger
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
or from any other source or guard of the train about the alleged
incident, but the said facts were not taken into consideration by
the learned tribunal at the time of passing of the impugned order.
(xi) The alleged story of the Respondents is false and fabricated one
and no such incident ever taken place and evidence of A.W.1does
not disclose that she has seen the incident and in absence of
anytravelling ticket or authority the A.W.1 and A.W-2 failed to
prove the bonafide passengership of the deceased.
(xii) The evidence of R.W.1 and the report of the Sr. Divisional
Security Commissioner/RPF clearly establishes that the deceased
had no valid journey ticket and no eye witness to the alleged
incident and the incident was not within the knowledge of on
duty guardand driver of the alleged train. As such the story put
forth by the applicantsis false and fabricated for which the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(xiii) The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate and take into
consideration the documentary evidence tendered on behalf of
the appellant and proceeded to allow the claim solely relying on
the evidence of the applicant witnesses which is not cogent and
trustworthy for thereasons mentioned above. Therefore, the
impugned judgement is liable to be set aside for non-
consideration of the evidence of the appellant.
(xiv) The learned Tribunal misconstrued the decision of the
Calcutta High Court in Asharani Das vs. Union of India & Anr
(supra) referred to in the impugned order that "in view of existence
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
of FIR, Post-mortem and final report submitted, all in one voice
concluding the case as accidental death without any foul play, the
incidentcomes under the purview of untoward incident as defined under
Section 123(c)(2) ofthe Railway Act,1989". When the railway has
seriously disputed that the deceased was a travelling passenger
and filed documentary evidence that the deceased did not travel
by the alleged train nor did he fell down from the alleged train,
the Tribunal should not have come to the conclusion that the
incident comes under the purview of untoward incident as
definedunder Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act,1989.
Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the death of
the deceased caused due to accidental falling down from the
running train is misconceived one and cannot be sustained in the
eye of law, hence, liable to be set aside.
(xv) The leaned Tribunal has erroneously enhanced the
compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- relying on the judgement of the
Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India
(supra) on the ground of amendment of the schedule when the
claim application was filed in the year 2015 and the amendment
came into force with effect from 01.01.2017. However, theApex
Court in the case of Union of India -Vrs- Rina Devi (supra) has
held that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date
of accident.Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is
erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(xvi) In such view of the matter, he contended that the prayer of the
Appellant may be allowed.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel from the Respondentsmade the
following submissions:
(i) The Respondents-claimants relied upon the contemporaneous
documentary record, namely, the First Information Report (FIR),
Inquest Report, Final Report, and Post-Mortem Examination
Report, all of which, in unison, indicate that the deceased, Dhanu
Sethi, accidentally fell from a running train between Chatrapur
and Jagannathpur Railway Stations. The inquest report prepared
by the investigating officer records the opinion that the cause of
death appeared to be the fall and consequent run-over by a
moving train. Upon completion of inquiry, the Railway Police
submitted the final report categorically opining that the death
was the result of an accidental fall from a running train and there
was no element of foul play. The post-mortem report further
corroborates the same, attributing the cause of death to ante-
mortem injuries consistent with accidental railway run-over.
(ii) The oral testimony of A.W.2, Debaraj Behera, further reinforces
the claimants' version. In his affidavit evidence, A.W.2 deposed
that he had accompanied the deceased to Bhubaneswar Railway
Station and had personally witnessed him boarding the general
class compartment of Train No. 12665 (Howrah-Kanyakumari
Express). His statement regarding the purchase of the journey
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
ticket by the deceased remained unchallenged and
uncontroverted during cross-examination.
(iii) It was further submitted that the journey ticket of the deceased
had been lost during the course of the accident. Although the
Respondent-Railway Administration denied the deceased's bona
fide passenger status, contending that no travel authority was
recovered from his possession during inquest, the evidence of
A.W.2, who deposed as an eyewitness to the purchase of the
ticket, was neither rebutted nor discredited by any contrary
evidence. The Appellant/Railway Administration, despite having
ample opportunity, failed to adduce any material to establish
that the deceased was a ticketless traveler.
(iv) It was therefore urged that, in cases of accidental falls from
moving trains, it is neither practicable nor reasonable to expect
the recovery or production of the ticket, since the same is often
lost or destroyed during the course of the mishap. In the present
case, the consistent oral and documentary evidence, coupled
with the absence of any rebuttal from the Appellant, sufficiently
establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the
alleged train within the meaning of Section 2(29) read with
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
(v) In view of the unimpeached documentary and oral evidence on
record, and having regard to the settled legal position enunciated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on
similar facts, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the death of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the deceased occurred as a result of an untoward incident as
defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Accordingly, the Tribunal, by its reasoned judgment and award
dated 11.01.2018 in O.A. No. 88 of 2016, allowed the claim
application and awarded compensation in accordance with the
revised Schedule of Compensation. The findings being based on
sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law, the
impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court
in appellate jurisdiction.
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. On the Issues which were taken up together the Tribunal
highlighted that the applicants filed FIR, Inquest Report, Final
report and post mortem examination report in order to
substantiate the plea that deceased accidentally fell down from
running train in between Chatrapur-Jagannathpur railway
station. The opinion of police officer in the inquest report as to
cause of death of the deceased was seems to be fall down from
any Running train and run over. On completionof enquiry, the
police submitted final report wherein thecause of death wasdue
to accidental fall down from the running train and there was no
suspicion, of any foul play. The post mortem examination report
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
shows the cause of death of the deceasedwas due to injuries
which are ante mortem in nature and in consistent with
accidental railway runover. AW 2, Debaraj Behera in his affidavit
evidence stated that he had gonewith the deceased
toBhubaneswar Railway station and seen the deceased while
boarding general class compartment of the alleged train. The
evidence of AW 2 with regard to boarding and purchase of ticket
by adeceased has not been controverted
ii. DRM investigation report shows that Sri K Jagannath, the on
duty Keyman of DTM 16 while he was performing track
checking duty from KM No.585/9-11 to 593/18-20, noticed one
male deadbody aged about 45 years was lying on the middle of
the railway track on UP line at KM No.689/25-27in between CAP
and JNP section. The on duty ASI/RPF/BAM, Sri Saroj Kumar
Barik in his affidavitevidence stated that there were no eye
witnesses to the alleged incident but a diary entry was made by
the SM/Jagannathpur on the basis of information of track man
regarding lying of maledead body in between Chhatrapur and
Jagannathpur railway station.
iii. The plea of the respondent is that there was no information to the
on duty train guard /driver of the alleged train regarding
accidental fall of the deceased. Such plea does not have
anypositive impact on the mind of the bench since the memo of
station diary entry, opinion of inquestreport and final report of
police are in favourof the applicants concluding the cause of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
death of thedeceased was due to accidental fall from running
train. The evidence of RW1 is of no assistanceto the respondent
to deny the untoward incident. There is also no evidence
available on record toshow that the alleged incident is coming
under any of the exceptions specified in proviso 124 A ofthe
Railways Act. Hence, the Tribunal would like to cite the
judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Asharani
Das (supra) wherein it has been held that in view of existence of
FIR, post mortem report and final report submitted, in one voice
concluding the case as an accidental death without any foul play,
the incident comes under the purview of untoward incident as
defined under section 123 (2) of the Railways Act 1989.
iv. Thus, in view of documentary and oral evidence supported by
settled principle of law, the Tribunal convinced that the death of
the deceased was caused in an untoward incident coming under
theambit of section 123 (C) of the Railways Act.
v. The pleadings of the applicants was that the journey ticket of the
deceased waslost in the incident. The respondent on the other
hand did not admit the deceased was a bona fide passenger of
the alleged train and stated that during inquest no travelling
authority was found in possession with the deceased. AW 2,
Debaraj-Behera has deposed before bench that he is an
eyewitness to the purchase of ticket by the deceased. The
respondent has not adduced anyevidenceto provethat the
deceased was a ticketless traveller in the alleged train. Thus, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Tribunal accepted thepleadings of the applicants that the journey
ticket of the deceased got lost during the accident.
vi. The applicant No.1 in her affidavit evidence stated that she is the
wife of the deceased and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of
the deceased. The affidavit evidence of AW 1 supported by voter
identity cards of the applicants. The respondent did not adduce
any evidence to prove anything otherwise. The Tribunal, thus,
accepted all the applicants are dependents of the deceased
keeping in view section 123 (b) of the Railways Act
vii. In view of foregoing discussion, holding that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger and died in an untoward incident, the
applicants being the wife and sons of the deceased, are entitled to
get compensation of Rs.800000/: (Eight Lakhs) as per Railway
Ministry's notification dated 22nd December 2016 under GSR
4456€ which came in vogue with effect from 01/01/2017. As such
as per provision of Railway Accident and Untoward incident,
(compensation) Amendment Rules 20416, and in view of
principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Rathi
Menon Vs Union of India (supra), the claimants are entitled to
the compensation as per the existing schedule on the date of
order
viii. The claimed interest for the pendent lite period is not considered
and not awarded asthe claimed amount for the case in OA was
Rs.400000/- while the awarded amount is Rs .800000/-(as per
revised schedule with effect from 01/01/2017) to avoid undue
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
double effect on the award, which might accrue due to (i)
awarding of revised compensation amount of Rs.800000/-(instead
of Rs.400000/-as per prevailed schedule during the time of OA
andclaim ) andin addition (ii) awarding of interestfor the
pendent lite period as claimed. Accordingly, the Tribunal has
passed the impugned judgment/ award.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court and the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal.
The central controversy in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass,
yet it engages questions of some legal significance touching upon the
interpretation of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989
and the scope of the statutory liability of the Railway Administration
thereunder. The rival contentions call for a judicial determination of
three core issues the issues that arise for determination in the present
appeal are:
(a) Whether the death of the deceased, Dhanu Sethi, was the result of
an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of
the Railways Act, 1989;
(b) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 12665
(Howrah-Kanyakumari Express) on the date of the occurrence?
(c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of
₹8, 00,000/- under the amended Schedule effective from
01.01.2017?
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
In the light of the foregoing issues framed herein, this Court now
proceeds to examine the evidentiary record and the findings of the
learned Tribunal through the prism of settled jurisprudence on this
subject.
i. Meaning and Scope of "Untoward Incident"
(a) Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines "untoward
incident" to include the accidental falling of any passenger from
a train carrying passengers. Under Section 124-A, the Railway
Administration is strictly liable to pay compensation in cases of
death or injury arising from such incidents, unless the case falls
within the specified exceptions like suicide, attempted suicide,
self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, insanity, or natural
cause/disease. The jurisprudential foundation of strict liability
under Section 124-A has been repeatedly emphasized by the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar4, the Court held that the expression "accidental falling of a
passenger from a train" must receive a liberal interpretation to
advance the beneficial object of the legislation for providing
social justice and compensation to victims of railway accidents.
The Court further clarified that it is not necessary that the
passenger must have been "inside" the train at the precise
moment of the fall and even a fall while boarding or alighting
would qualify. The principle was reaffirmed in Jameela v. Union
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
of India5, wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that
even if negligence can be attributed to the passenger, it would
not disentitle the legal heirs to get compensation, since Section
124-A does not prescribe predicate liability in the absence of
fault. Once the death is shown to have occurred in an "untoward
incident", the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to
establish that the case falls within one of the statutory exceptions.
(b) In the instant case, the contemporaneous records, named, the
FIR, inquest report, final police report, and post-mortem report
which consistently record that the deceased accidentally fell from
a moving train and died due to injuries consistent with a railway
run-over. There is no material on record to suggest suicide,
criminal act, or any other exclusionary circumstance under the
proviso to Section 124-A. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in
holding that the death of the deceased was the result of an
"untoward incident" within the statutory meaning.
ii. Determination of "Bona Fide Passenger" Status
(a) The next aspect relates to the deceased's status as a bona fide
passenger which constitutes the condition precedent for invoking
Section 124-A. The Appellant's principal contention was that no
journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and therefore the
claimants failed to discharge the initial burden. However, the
consistent judicial view is that non-recovery or loss of a ticket in
the course of an accident does not, by itself, negate the status of
(2010) 12 SCC 443
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
bona fide travel. In Union of India v. Rina Devi(supra) , the
Supreme Court held that when there is credible evidence of the
deceased's travel like oral, circumstantial, or documentary
wherein the absence of a ticket should not defeat the claim,
especially in cases of accidental falls where the ticket may
reasonably be lost or destroyed. The Court reiterated that the
beneficial object of the statute must guide interpretation, and
technical lapses cannot vitiate genuine claims. In Union of India
v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh6 , the Apex Court reiterated that once the
evidence reasonably establishes that the deceased had boarded
the train as a passenger, the onus shifts to the Railway
Administration to rebut such inference with cogent material.
(b) In the present case, A.W.2, Debaraj Behera, deposed on affidavit
that he personally accompanied the deceased to Bhubaneswar
Railway Station and saw him boarding the general class
compartment of the train after purchasing a ticket. His testimony
remained unchallenged in cross-examination and was
corroborated by the contemporaneous police papers indicating
accidental fall from a running train. The Railway Administration,
on the other hand, failed to adduce any evidence to show that the
deceased was ticketless.
(c) The Tribunal, therefore, was correct in accepting the deceased as
a bona fide passenger, applying the principle enunciated in Rina
1984 (4) SCC 246
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Devi (supra) and Jameela (supra), wherein it has been held that
the presumption of bona fide travel arises from credible oral and
circumstantial evidence unless effectively rebutted by the
Railway.
iii. Applicability of Exceptions under the Proviso to Section 124-A
(a) The Railway Administration has not raised any allegation, much
less prove, that the deceased's death was due to suicide, criminal
act, self-inflicted injury, or any other statutory exception. The
record is completely devoid of such evidence since the burden of
proving the applicability of the proviso to Section 124-A lies
squarely on the Railway Administration. The Tribunal's finding
that no exception applies is quite in conformity with the settled
law.
iv. Determination of Compensation and Applicable Schedule
(a) The learned Tribunal awarded ₹8,00,000/- applying the amended
Schedule of Compensation effective from 01.01.2017, relying on
Rathi Menon v. Union of India(supra). However, this approach
does not align with some of the authoritative pronouncement
which was pronounced later such as Union of India v. Rina Devi
(supra), wherein the Supreme Court clarified that the relevant
date for determining the quantum of compensation is the date of
the accident, not the date of adjudication or order. Since the
accident occurred on 21.07.2015, the applicable schedule would
be the one prevailing on that date, i.e., ₹4,00,000/-, with interest
as permissible under law. The Tribunal's reliance on Rathi
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Menon (supra) was thus misplaced to the extent that it applied
the amended schedule retrospectively. Nevertheless, the finding
regarding liability is unimpeachable and supported by both
evidence and binding precedent.
v. Standard of Appellate Interference
(a) It is well settled that appellate courts, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987, do not ordinarily interfere with the Tribunal's findings of
fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. In the
present case, the findings of the Tribunal regarding the
occurrence of an untoward incident and the bona fide passenger
status of the deceased are based on cogent evidence and
supported by the ratio of plethora of Supreme Court judgments.
The only infirmity that arises pertains to the quantum of
compensation, which requires correction in light of Rina Devi
(supra).
vi. Jurisprudential Summary of the instant case:
(a) The cumulative position of law emerging from the above
precedents may be summarised thus:
Liability under Section 124-A is strict and no-fault based. The
term "untoward incident" must receive a broad and liberal
construction to effectuate the legislative object. Non-recovery or
loss of ticket is not fatal if there is credible evidence of travel. The
burden of proving exceptions rests with the Railway
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Administration. The relevant date for compensation is the date of
accident, not the date of adjudication.
7. Applying the above principles, this Court finds no merit in the
Appellant's challenge to the finding of liability, though a recalibration
of the quantum of compensation in line with the prevailing Schedule as
on the date of the accident is warranted.
VI. CONCLUSION:
8. In the conspectus of the foregoing analysis and upon a comprehensive
evaluation of the evidence, statutory provisions, and settled judicial
precedents, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal committed no error of law or fact in holding
that the death of the deceased, Dhanu Sethi, occurred as a consequence
of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read
with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
9. The Railway Administration, having failed to bring the case within any
of the exceptions engrafted in the proviso to Section 124-A, cannot be
absolved of statutory liability. The findings of the Tribunal that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger, based on the unrebutted
testimony of A.W.2 and corroborated by the contemporaneous official
records (FIR, inquest report, police final report, and post-mortem
report), are supported by the ratio decided in Rina Devi(supra),
Jameela(supra) and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra). Further, the
contention of the Appellant that absence of a ticket disqualified the
deceased from the status of bona fide passenger is untenable, as it is
well settled that the loss of a ticket during an accidental fall cannot
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
defeat a legitimate claim. The Tribunal rightly drew a presumption of
bona fide travel based on credible oral and circumstantial evidence,
consistent with the beneficial object of the Act. However, on the
question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal's reliance on the
amended Schedule effective from 01.01.2017 cannot be sustained in
view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rina Devi (supra), which categorically holds that the relevant
date for determining compensation is the date of the accident, not the
date of adjudication. As the accident occurred on 21.07.2015, the
applicable Schedule of Compensation provided for a sum of ₹4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs) for cases of death resulting from untoward
incidents. The Tribunal thus erred in awarding ₹8,00,000/-, which
represents the enhanced rate notified subsequently under GSR 1116(E)
dated 22.12.2016, effective from 01.01.2017.
10.Accordingly, while the finding as to liability is affirmed, the award is
modified to the extent of quantum, reducing the compensation to
₹4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs), together with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of the claim application till the date of
realization. In case of default in payment within three months from
today, the entire amount shall carry further interest at 8% per annum
from the date of default till realization.
11.The Appellant/Railway Administration shall deposit the aforesaid
amount before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,
within a period of TWO MONTHS from the date of this judgment.
Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Respondents/claimants in equal proportion, after due verification of
identity, by account payee cheque or electronic transfer.
12.The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the
Respondents/claimants 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.
13.The appeal is thus partly allowed, to the limited extent of modification
of the quantum of compensation as indicated above. The finding of
liability and entitlement recorded by the learned Tribunal stands
affirmed in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th Nov., 2025/
