Orissa High Court

(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... 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 18:09:01


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               FAO No. 68 of 2021
       (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
       1987)

       Mahalakshmi Behera & Anr.                  ....                  Appellant (s)

                                       -versus-


       Union of India                             ....             Respondent (s)

     Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

       For Appellant (s)           :                       Mr. Sambit Das, Adv.


       For Respondent (s)          :                   Smt. Nibedita Sahoo, CGC

                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                     DATE OF HEARING:-16.10.2025
                    DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025

     Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The instant First Appeal (FAO) has been instituted by the Appellants,

asserting their status as the legal heirs of the deceased, who is alleged

to have met with an untimely demise in a railway accident. The

Appellants call in question the legality, propriety, and correctness of

the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2021 rendered by the

learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar

in Case No. O.A.(IIU)/165/2017. Besides impugning the said

adjudication, the Appellants have also invoked the appellate

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the Respondent-

Railway Administration to disburse in their favour a sum of ₹8,

00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum, being the statutory compensation envisaged under Section

124A of the Railways Act, 1989, on account of the death of the

deceased in the alleged untoward incident.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

(a) It is the case of the Appellants that the deceased, owing to certain personal exigencies, was undertaking a journey from

Bilaspur Junction to Kantabanji by Train No.17481 -- Bilaspur-

Tirupati Express. The deceased is stated to have been travelling

on the strength of a valid second-class journey ticket bearing

No.66195635, duly purchased from the ticket counter at Bilaspur

Railway Station. It is further alleged that during the course of

the said journey, owing to the heavy rush and the resultant

jostling of passengers within the compartment, the deceased

accidentally fell down from the running train near Rupra Road

Railway Station and succumbed to the injuries sustained, died

instantaneously at the spot.

(b) In the aftermath of the aforesaid occurrence, a criminal case was promptly instituted by the jurisdictional police authorities.

Pursuant thereto, an investigation was undertaken, and upon its

culmination, the Investigating Agency submitted the requisite

final report before the competent court in accordance with law.

Subsequent to the unfortunate demise of the deceased, the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Appellants, asserting their locus as the lawful heirs of the

deceased, approached the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, by filing an application

registered as O.A.(IIU)/165/2017, seeking adjudication of their

claim and grant of statutory compensation under the relevant

provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, on account of the death of

the deceased in the alleged untoward incident.

(c) Consequent upon the occurrence of the aforesaid unfortunate incident, a criminal case came to be instituted before the

jurisdictional police authorities. In due course, the matter was

taken up for investigation, and upon culmination thereof, the

Investigating Agency submitted the requisite final report before

the competent criminal court in accordance with law. Thereafter,

the Appellants, asserting their locus as the legal heirs of the

deceased, invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Railway

Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, by

instituting a claim application registered as O.A.(IIU)/165/2017,

seeking adjudication and award of statutory compensation

under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, for the death of

the deceased in the alleged untoward incident.

(d) Upon institution of the claim application and consequent issuance of notice, the Respondent-Railway entered appearance

and filed its preliminary written statement along with the

statutory Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) investigation

report, thereby traversing and controverting each of the

allegations advanced in the claim petition. In its written reply, it

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

was asserted that the averments contained in the claim

application are wholly false, concocted, and dehors the ambit of

an "untoward incident" as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2)

of the Railways Act, 1989. The DRM's investigation report,

forming part of the record, purportedly discloses that the

deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the journey

ticket allegedly recovered during the inquest was invalid and

had no nexus with the incident in question. The said report

further records that there were no ocular witnesses to the

alleged occurrence and that no cogent material is available on

record to explain the circumstances under which the dead body

of the deceased was found lying on the railway track.

(e) Upon institution of the claim application, the Applicants adduced documentary evidence such as the inquest report, post-

mortem examination report, journey tickets, and identification

documents, and examined two witnesses, including the son of

the deceased. The Respondent-Railway, on the other hand, filed

its written statement together with the statutory DRM's

investigation report and other materials, and examined an RPF

official to substantiate its stand.

(f) Upon hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, the learned Tribunal framed issues relating to (i) the

nature of the incident, (ii) the bona fide status of the deceased as a

passenger, (iii) entitlement to compensation under Section 124-A

of the Railways Act, and (iv) dependency of the claimants.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(g) Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal observed that two journey tickets were recovered from the deceased--one

from Mathura to Raipur and another from Bilaspur to

Kantabanji, both unreserved and of limited validity. Since the

Bilaspur-Tirupati Express does not pass through Raipur and the

ticket issued at 23:15 hours could not have been valid for a

journey undertaken the next morning, the Tribunal doubted the

genuineness of the Applicants' case. The purported eye-witness,

A.W.2, was found unreliable, as he furnished no proof of travel

and had not intimated anyone about the incident.

(h) The DRM's report indicated that the body of the deceased was found between the two rails of the up line track between Rupra

Road and Narla Road Stations was well beyond the alleged

destination of Kantabanji and that the train crew had neither

noticed nor reported any untoward incident. The Tribunal,

relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi1 held that mere recovery

of a dead body on the railway track is insufficient to presume a

fall from a running train, particularly when no valid ticket or

credible evidence of travel is forthcoming.

(i) Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did not result from an

"untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of

the Railways Act, 1989. The claim application was thus

dismissed on merits, without any order as to costs. Aggrieved

2019) 3 SCC 572

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

thereby, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants

before this Court.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

i. Learned counsel for the Appellants has assailed the findings of

the learned Tribunal as being speculative, presumptive, and

unsupported by the weight of evidence on record. It is

contended that the deceased was, in fact, a bona fide and valid

passenger of Train No. 17481, Bilaspur-Tirupati Express,

travelling on a duly purchased journey ticket. The entire

reasoning of the learned Tribunal rests on conjecture rather than

any substantive contradiction in the record. Attention has been

invited to the police papers, including the inquest report, the

final report, and the report of the Railway Enquiry Officer, all of

which consistently and unequivocally record that the deceased

accidentally fell down from the running train between Rupra

Road and Norla Road Railway Stations, resulting in his

instantaneous death. It is thus submitted that the learned

Tribunal erred in disregarding these contemporaneous official

documents and in rejecting the claim on mere presumptions

unsubstantiated by any cogent rebuttal from the Respondent-

Railway.

ii. It is further contended that the independent witness, A.W.2, had

categorically deposed before the learned Tribunal that he had

personally witnessed the accidental fall of the deceased from the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

running train. The Respondent-Railway Administration, on the

other hand, examined only one witness, namely, Sri G.

Mahananda, Sub-Inspector, RPF, Muniguda, who appeared as

R.W.1 to support the contents of their written statement.

Significantly, during the course of cross-examination, R.W.1

candidly admitted that the incident in question constituted an

"untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act. In

such circumstances, it is urged that the learned Tribunal fell in

grave error in discarding the consistent and corroborated

evidence on record and in arriving at the conclusion that the

death of the deceased did not arise out of an untoward incident.

The impugned order, having been rendered in disregard of the

evidentiary materials and the admission of the Respondent's

own witness, is therefore bad in law and unsustainable on facts.

iii. It is further contended that the independent witness, A.W.2, had

categorically deposed before the learned Tribunal that he had

personally witnessed the accidental fall of the deceased from the

running train. The Respondent-Railway Administration, on the

other hand, examined only one witness, namely, Sri G.

Mahananda, Sub-Inspector, RPF, Muniguda, who appeared as

R.W.1 to support the contents of their written statement.

Significantly, during the course of cross-examination, R.W.1

candidly admitted that the incident in question constituted an

"untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act. In

such circumstances, it is urged that the learned Tribunal fell in

grave error in discarding the consistent and corroborated

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

evidence on record and in arriving at the conclusion that the

death of the deceased did not arise out of an untoward incident.

The impugned order, having been rendered in disregard of the

evidentiary materials and the admission of the Respondent's

own witness, is therefore bad in law and unsustainable on facts.

iv. There is also a provision at Section 138 (1)(b) of the Railway Act,

1989 for travels in a train in contravention of the provisions at

Section 55 of the Railway Act, 1989. The passenger shall be liable

to pay the excess charges and fare in addition to ordinary single

fare for travelling the distance which he/she has travelled and in

case of doubt about the Station from which he/she travels, then

from the Station which the train started.

v. He further contends that merely because the deceased had

travelled beyond Kantabanjhi Railway Station, cannot be termed

as the deceased being a trespasser. Furthermore, at the most, his

travel from Kantabanjhi towards Norla Road Railway Station

may be termed as over-travelling as he could not rise and get

down at Kantabanjhi Station. Thus, any passenger who travels

unintentionally, cannot be termed as mala fide or fraudulent

passenger. In presence of provision of Section 138 (1) (b) of

Railway Act, 1989 for travels in a train in contravention of the

provisions of Section 55 of Railway Act, 1989, the passenger shall

be liable to pay the excess charges and fare in addition to

ordinary single fare for travelling the distance which he/she has

travelled.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

vi. Since the ticket less travel is an illegal act and exposes such

traveller to get penal action under Section 138 (4) of Railway Act,

1989, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the

passenger travelling in train under Section 114 of the Indian

Evidence Act, unless contrary proved by the Railway

Administration that the passenger was, in fact, a Ticket less

traveller and not a bona fide passenger, as nothing prevented

Respondent Railway Administration from checking and

detecting unauthorized person travelling without ticket. Hence,

the deceased Bhaskar Behera cannot be said as not a bona fide

passenger while travelling in Bilashpur-Tirupati (17481) Express.

He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this

FAO.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

i. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent-Railway has

strenuously opposed the appeal and supported the findings

rendered by the learned Tribunal. Placing reliance on the

statutory Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) investigation

report, it is contended that the claim as advanced by the

Appellants is devoid of merit, both on facts and in law.

ii. It is submitted that, firstly, the two unreserved journey tickets

recovered from the person of the deceased--one from Mathura

to Raipur and another from Bilaspur to Kantabanji which were

of limited validity and had long expired by the time of the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

alleged occurrence. The unreserved tickets, by their very nature,

remain valid only for a specified period (usually three hours

from the time of issue). The deceased is said to have boarded

Train No. 17481 Bilaspur-Tirupati Express at about 10:00 a.m. on

01.04.2017, although the ticket had been purchased at 23:15

hours of 31.03.2017. Hence, the ticket had ceased to be operative

and could not have been used for travel at the material time.

iii. Secondly, the ticket from Mathura to Raipur was entirely

incongruent with the route of the Hirakud Express (Train No.

18508), which, by schedule, does not pass through Raipur. The

very purchase of a ticket for a destination lying beyond the

operational route of the train betrays a fabricated or inconsistent

narrative, thereby eroding the credibility of the Applicants'

version.

iv. Thirdly, the learned counsel submitted that there existed no

credible ocular evidence to establish that the deceased was

actually travelling by the said train. The purported eye-witness,

A.W.2, failed to produce any proof of his own travel, admitted

that he had not intimated anyone about the alleged fall, and

therefore stands discredited. Consequently, there is no direct

evidence of the deceased being a bona fide passenger.

v. Fourthly, the counsel has emphasised that the physical position

of the deceased's body, as recorded in the inquest and

corroborated by photographs, shows that the body was lying

between the two rails of the up line track and not by the side

thereof, which, in the ordinary course, would have been

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

expected in a case of accidental fall. Moreover, the body

remained undetected for over twelve hours, as the Loco Pilot of

a goods train noticed it only on the following morning. These

factors lend strong probability to the hypothesis that the

deceased was either run over while crossing the track or that it

was a case of suicide or self-inflicted injury, falling squarely

within the exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124-

A of the Railways Act, 1989.

vi. The learned counsel further contends that the strict liability

principle embodied under Section 124-A operates only when the

foundational facts, named, (i) that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger, and (ii) that death occurred in an "untoward

incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) are first established

by the claimants. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed

on the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Rina Devi(supra ) (wherein it was held that:

"The burden of proof lies initially on the claimant to establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death or injury occurred in an untoward incident as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2). Only upon discharge of such burden does the onus shift to the Railway Administration to rebut the same."

vii. The Respondent also draws sustenance from the ratio laid down

in Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh2 , where the Supreme

Court reaffirmed that the initial evidentiary burden rests on the

claimants to show, even by circumstantial evidence, that the

(2018) 9 SCC 29

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

deceased was a bona fide passenger.In distinguishing the

Appellants' reliance on Jameela v. Union of India,3which

proceeds on the premise that the passenger's bona fide status

was undisputed. There, the fall of a passenger holding a

confirmed ticket was accepted; hence, the Supreme Court

confined itself to the question of contributory negligence. In

contrast, in the present case, the very factum of travel and the

genuineness of the ticket are in serious dispute. Therefore,

Jameela(supra) cannot be read to dilute the initial evidentiary

burden or to transform mere conjecture into proof.

viii. Learned counsel further relies on Union of India v. Radha

Yadav4, where the Supreme Court reiterated that mere discovery

of a dead body on the railway premises, in the absence of

evidence of travel, does not automatically warrant

compensation. The Court clarified that the principle of beneficial

interpretation cannot be stretched to the extent of converting

speculation into entitlement.

ix. Expounding the jurisprudential foundation of Section 124-A, the

learned counsel submits that though the provision embodies a

species of strict liability which is akin to the rule in Rylands v.

Fletcher5, it does not render the Railway Administration an

insurer for all deaths on or near railway tracks. The statute

balances social welfare with evidentiary prudence by carving out

3 (2010) 12 SCC 443 4 (2019) 3 SCC 410

(1868) LR 3 HL 330

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

specific exceptions and by placing the initial onus on the

claimant to establish bona fide travel and accidental fall.

x. In the present case, it is urged, the Applicants have failed to

discharge even this minimal burden. Neither the ticket nor the

evidence of travel withstands scrutiny; the supposed eyewitness

is untrustworthy; and the physical circumstances of the death

suggest otherwise. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held

that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his

death did not result from an "untoward incident" within the

meaning of Section 123(c)(2).Accordingly, the Respondent prays

for dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the impugned

order.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUAL, BHUBANESWAR :

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) While answering all the issues which were taken up together, the

Tribunal going purely by the technical validity of the ticket found

in possession of the deceased, it can be inferred that the deceased

was not in possession of a valid ticket and was not travelling as a

bona fide passenger of the alleged train.

(ii) The case record reveals that applicant No.2, son of the deceased, is

not an eye witness to the alleged incident. He has not seen the

purchase of ticket by his deceased father, travelling in the train

and falling down from it. Therefore, the testimony of AW 1 before

the bench is based on hearsay evidence. AW 2, Sudharkar Gauda,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

who supposed to be an eye witness to the accidental fall of the

deceased from running train, has deposed before the bench that

"I have no documents to prove regarding my travel by the train on

01/04/17", He has further deposed that he never intimated any

person regarding the old person falling down from the train. In

view of these facts, the testimony of AW 2 before the bench being

a co-passenger with the deceased in the same train is disputed

and cannot be relied upon.

(iii) The dead body of the deceased was first noticed by the Loco Pilot

of Goods Train NMVAA at about 7.30 Hours of 02.04.2017 on Up

line at Km 234/ 78 between Rupra Road - Norla Road, which is

beyond the alleged destination station of the deceased, i.e.

Kantabanji. The DRM's report reveals that the on duty crew of

alleged train No.17481, the train from which the deceased had

allegedly fallen down, during enquiry into the case, denied to

have noticed or received any sort of information from any corner

about any untoward incident. As per the Guard of the train 17481

Bilaspur- Tirupati Express, the train departed from Rupra Road at

18.06 Hours and reached Norla Road at 18.13 Hrs of 1.4.2017. The

body had apparently gone undetected for more than 12 hours.

(iv) It is settled in law that recovery of dead body on railway track

alone will not ipso-facto prove that the cause of the death of the

deceased is due to fall from a running train. The documentary

evidence available in the case record does not establish that the

deceased had actually travelled in any train and was a victim of

an untoward incident. Though journey tickets have been

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

recovered from the deceased during inquest, but these tickets are

not valid.

(v) The legal position is also very clear as it has been held in the case

of Union of India vs. Rina Devi6 that "mere presence of a body on the

railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the 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 shown or the

attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case

on the basis of facts found".

(vi) The fact is that the dead body of the deceased in this case was first

noticed on 02/04/2017 at about 07.30 hours lying in between the

two rails of the UP line track between Rupra and Norla road

railway stations, which was well beyond the alleged destination

station of Kantabanji where the deceased was to alight. During

inquest no valid journey ticket was recovered from him.

Therefore, the burden squarely lies on the Applicants to establish

that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and in fact suffered

from an accidental fall from the train before they can seek

compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989, As

per the pleading of the Applicants, during journey the deceased

suddenly awoke from his sleep, washed his face and came to the

2018 ACJ 1441 (SC)

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

exit door and accidentally fell down from the running train. The

co-passenger, who was supposedly a witness to the incident and

was presented as AW 2 had not taken any action to bring the train

to a stop by resorting to ACP or raising an alarm among all other

passengers in the coach following an 'incident of such serious

magnitude gives rise to a serious doubt about the reliability of his

deposition. Therefore, the pleading of the Applicants that the

deceased fell down from running train and died does not hold

good due to controverted and disputed evidence. The final report

of GRPS/ Titilagarh with regard to death of the deceased stated as

accidental seems to be tentative and is based on presumption

without supportive evidence to that effect.

(vii) In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

found that the Applicants have failed to discharge the burden

lying upon them to establish that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger and a victim of an untoward incident as has been

defined under section 123 (c)( ) of the Railways Act 1989, It does

appear from all circumstantial evidence that the death may have

arisen due to some other reasons that are covered in exceptions (a)

to (c) of Sec 124-A of the Indian Railways Act. Therefore, it was

held that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation from

the Railway Administration for such death which was caused

otherwise. Accordingly, the claim application has been dismissed.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.Learned counsel for the Appellants has assailed the findings of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

the learned Tribunal as being speculative, presumptive, and

unsupported by the weight of evidence on record. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the strict liability

principle embodied under Section 124-A operates only when the

foundational facts, named, (i) that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger, and (ii) that death occurred in an "untoward incident" as

defined under Section 123(c)(2) are first established by the claimants.

In view of the rival contention of the parties , this court proceeds on

the following headings:

A. Statutory Scheme and jurisprudential milestones:

Section 123(c)(2) defines "untoward incident" to include "the

accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."

Section 124-A prescribes no-fault/strict liability, the Railway is liable to

pay compensation for death or injury in an "untoward incident",

"whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default"

on its part, subject only to the enumerated exceptions

(suicide/attempted suicide; self-inflicted injury; criminal act;

intoxication/insanity; natural cause/disease). The Supreme Court in

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) affirms that the beneficial, strict-

liability character of Section 124-A and gives an expansive reading to

"untoward incident." Similarly, Jameela (supra) reiterates that

negligence of the passenger (e.g., standing near the door) does not

defeat compensation; contributory negligence is alien to Section 124-A.

In the context Rina Devi (supra) may be cited which governs three

core holdings relevant herein:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

i. Mere presence of a body on railway premises does not

automatically prove bona fide passenger status; the initial onus

lies on the claimant but can be discharged by affidavits and

circumstantial/material evidence, whereafter the burden shifts to

the Railways.

ii. When the claim is otherwise made out, compensation is payable

on strict liability, subject to statutory exceptions, and interest is

ordinarily payable from the date of accident.

iii. Quantum is as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward

Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as amended post 1.1.2014

the amount has been modified to Rs. 8,00, 000/- for death.)

Several High Courts, applying Rina Devi (supra), emphasise that once

the claimants' version is supported by contemporaneous police papers

and a plausible travel narrative, the evidentiary onus shifts to the

Railways to rebut bona fides or bring the case within the Section 124-A

proviso; absence of a ticket is not fatal per se (tickets are frequently lost

in such mishaps)

B. Points for Determination

i. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

ii. Whether the death arose from an "untoward incident" within Section

123(c)(2)?

iii. Whether any statutory exception under the proviso to Section 124-A is

attracted or not?

C. Analysis in the light of the facts of the case:

(i) Issue of the deceased being a bona fide passenger

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

a) The Appellants, in order to establish the claim, have placed on

record the inquest report, the post-mortem report, the police

final report, and the journey tickets alleged to have been

recovered from the deceased. In addition, A.W.1, a close relative

of the deceased, has deposed to the factum of the journey

undertaken by the deceased, while A.W.2 has specifically

testified that he had actually witnessed the deceased falling from

the moving train. The contemporaneous official records, namely

the police investigation papers and the enquiry report prepared

by the Railway authorities themselves, consistently showthat the

death had occurred due to a fall from a moving train between

Rupra Road and Narla Road railway stations. These materials,

when read together in a holistic and contextual manner,

constitute a coherent chain of evidence, which is adequate to

discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon the claimants to

establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that

the death occurred due to an "untoward incident" as defined

under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.At this stage, it

is useful to recall the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Rina Devi(supra) wherein it was held that

once the claimant produces credible material such as journey

tickets, police records, and contemporaneous evidence

suggesting a fall from a moving train, the initial onus upon the

claimant stands discharged. Thereafter, the evidentiary burden

shifts to the Railway Administration to establish that (i) the

deceased was not a bona fide passenger, or (ii) the incident falls

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

within any of the statutory exceptions carved out under the

proviso to Section 124-A, such as suicide, self-inflicted injury,

criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause. The beneficial nature

of this provision was reiterated in Union of India v.

Prabhakaran VijayaKumar (supra) and again in Jameela v.

Union of India (supra) wherein the Apex Court emphasized

that strict liability attaches to the Railways once the essential

ingredients of Section 124-A are established, and the claimant is

not required to prove negligence, fault, or misconduct.

b) The learned Tribunal, however, appears to have misdirected

itself in law and in approach by treating certain perceived

anomalies, named, that the tickets were unreserved, that the

validity period had expired, that the Mathura-Raipur ticket was

incongruent with the route of the train, and that the deceased

may have over-travelled beyond Kantabanji as determinative

against the claimants. Such reasoning, reflects a misappreciation

of the statutory scheme and a departure from the ratio of Rina

Devi (supra). Under the beneficent and no-fault framework of

Section 124-A, the object of the statute is to afford social security

and speedy relief to victims of railway accidents and their

dependents. The legislative intent, discernible from the plain text

and the interpretive trajectory of judicial precedents, is that

technical or procedural irregularities in travel such as travelling

in an unreserved compartment, possessing a ticket of limited

validity, or even boarding the wrong train cannot, by

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

themselves, deprive a person of the status of a "passenger"

Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:01

within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Act.

c) Even if it were assumed arguendo that there was a certain

irregularity in the deceased's ticket or route, the consequence

thereof would only be the imposition of tariff or penalty

measures under Sections 55 and 138 of the Railways Act, which

deal respectively with the collection of excess fare and the levy

of penalties for irregular travel. Such irregularities do not ipso

facto extinguish the traveller's lawful character as a passenger for

the purposes of Section 124-A, unless it is shown that the travel

was tainted by mens rea, for instance, by deliberate fare evasion,

ticket forgery, or criminal trespass.

d) Significantly, in the present case, the Railway Administration

has not adduced any cogent or credible evidence to demonstrate

that the deceased had committed any act falling within the

statutory exceptions to liability. There is no evidence of ticket

forgery, deliberate evasion of fare, or any contemporaneous

detection of unauthorised travel by the railway staff. The official

inquiry reports and the cross-examination of R.W.1, the Railway

witness, in fact, corroborate the version of the appellants and

affirm that the death occurred due to a fall from a moving train,

squarely bringing it within the ambit of an "untoward incident."

e) It is important to note that Section 124-A embodies a statutory

recognition of strict and vicarious liability, a principle rooted in

the policy of social welfare and distributive justice. As the

Supreme Court observed in Jameela (supra),wherein it is

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

observed that"a person who accidentally falls from a train carrying

passengers must be considered a passenger," and "the mere fact that

the deceased was negligent or careless in standing near the open door

does not take the case out of the purview of Section 124-A." In the

same vein, Rina Devi (supra) cautioned that the claim should

not be defeated on hyper-technical grounds once the basic

factum of an untoward incident and bona fide journey stands

established.

f) In the absence of any positive evidence from the Railways to

dislodge the prima facie case established by the appellants, the

Tribunal's conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide

passenger cannot be sustained. It proceeds on conjecture, ignores

the presumption of regularity attached to official acts under

Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, and fails to appreciate the

beneficial object underlying the statutory scheme. The approach

adopted is, therefore, contrary not only to the evidentiary record

but also to the settled exposition of law governing claims under

the Railways Act.

g) Accordingly, this Court holds that the deceased was indeed a

bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the

Act and that his death resulted from an untoward incident as

defined under Section 123(c)(2). The liability of the Railway

Administration under Section 124-A, being strict and absolute,

thus stands attracted, and the appellants are entitled to

compensation in accordance with law.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(ii) Untoward incident within Section 123(c) (2)

(a) The pleaded mechanism of the occurrence, named, jostling and

overcrowding leading to an accidental fall from a moving train

which squarely satisfies the statutory description of an

"untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways

Act, 1989. Once such a factual foundation is established, the

incident falls within the ambit of Section 124-A, which imposes

a strict, no-fault liability upon the Railway Administration,

subject only to the limited exceptions enumerated in the

proviso.In Jameela v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme

Court emphatically held that compensation cannot be denied

merely because the passenger was negligent in standing near

the open door or lost balance; negligence of that nature is not

tantamount to a "criminal act" or "self-inflicted injury".

Similarly, in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar

(supra) underscores that the statute must receive a broad,

passenger-protective interpretation, in keeping with its

remedial and welfare-oriented purpose. The later decision in

Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) consolidates this

jurisprudence, affirming that accidental falls from trains are

compensable under Section 124-A on a strict-liability basis, and

that once the claimant establishes a probable fall during travel,

the evidentiary burden shifts to the Railways to prove a

statutory exception.Viewed in this context, the DRM's

speculative observations such as the body being found between

the rails, the train crew's failure to notice the incident, or the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

delayed detection etc. are equivocal circumstances at best. They

may raise doubt but do not, by themselves, prove suicide, self-

inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural

cause/disease--the only recognized gateways to defeat liability

under the proviso. The law does not permit liability to be

negatived on conjecture or on mere anomalies in post-

occurrence discovery.In the absence of persuasive proof of any

proviso exception, the presumption of an "untoward incident"

stands unrebutted, and the default rule of strict liability under

Section 124-A must operate. The occurrence, as pleaded and

supported by contemporaneous official records, thus squarely

attracts the compensatory protection of the statute.

(iii) Route incongruity / over-travel as alleged by the Respondent:

a) The alleged inconsistency surrounding the recovery of a

Mathura-Raipur unreserved ticket and the supposed over-travel

beyond Kantabanji cannot, in law or logic discredit the

appellants' claim or efface the deceased's status as a bona fide

passenger. The statutory scheme under the Railways Act, 1989

draws a clear conceptual and legal distinction between tariff

irregularities and culpable or excluded conduct. While the

former may attract fiscal or regulatory consequences, the latter

alone can extinguish compensatory liability under Section 124-

A.At the highest, over-travelling or ticket incongruity may invite

penal or administrative consequences under Section 138(1)(b) of

the Act, which provides for the imposition of excess fare or

penalty where a person is found travelling beyond the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

authorised destination. Such conduct, even if proved, partakes

the nature of an irregularity is not an infraction of moral

blameworthiness and hence cannot be elevated to the status of a

"criminal act" or "self-inflicted injury" within the meaning of the

proviso to Section 124-A. The statutory design is deliberate: as

the legislature, in codifying railway accident liability,

consciously demarcated tariff non-compliance under Chapter

XIV from causative conduct leading to exclusion of liability

under Chapter XIII) of the Act.The Supreme Court's

pronouncement in Rina Devi (supra) reaffirms this distinction. It

holds that once the claimant establishes prima facie evidence of

an accidental fall during the course of travel, the burden

decisively shifts to the Railways to prove that the incident falls

within one of the narrowly tailored exceptions enumerated in

the proviso to Section 124-A viz. suicide, self-inflicted injury,

criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause/disease. The Court

categorically rejected the notion that travel irregularities or fare-

related discrepancies couldconstitute an exception to liability.

The Supreme Court has time and again observed that the statute

is designed to serve a social insurance function, shielding

passengers and their dependents from the economic

consequences of accidental injuries and deaths arising from

railway operations. In order to construe the provisions of the Act

narrowly or to enlarge the scope of its exceptions, would be to

defeat its remedial purpose and to undermine the spirit of Indian

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

constitution as envisaged in Article 21which guarantees the right

to life with dignity.

b) In Jameela (supra) the Supreme Court unequivocally held that

mere negligence such as standing near the open door, jostling, or

losing balance does not disqualify a passenger from claiming

compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court clarified that the determinative test is not whether the

passenger's conduct was ideal or cautious, but whether the

death occurred as the result of an untoward incident during the

course of lawful travel. The ruling reinforces that liability under

Section 124-A is strict, non-fault-based, and non-derogable,

admitting exceptions only where the Railways affirmatively

establish that the death resulted from one of the prohibited

causes enumerated in the proviso such as suicide, self-inflicted

injury, intoxication, criminal act, or natural cause. In fact, to treat

over-travel or ticket incongruity as a defence to such liability

would amount to reading into the statute an exception which the

legislature has consciously refrained from enacting. Such an

interpretation would impermissibly elevate a mere tariff

irregularity into a ground for the forfeiture of substantive rights,

thereby undermining the beneficial and compensatory purpose

of the legislation. The doctrine of strict liability, as evolved from

Rylands v. Fletcher7 and consistently endorsed in Indian public

law jurisprudence, admits of no judicial dilution in the face of

clear statutory mandate.

(1868) LR 3 HL 330

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

c) The beneficent and social-protective character of Section 124-A

therefore mandates a liberal construction, ensuring that bona

fide passengers remain within its protective fold even where

minor ticket or route irregularities occur, so long as the travel is

not proven to be fraudulent or criminal in nature. Once credible

materials such as journey tickets, police records, and eyewitness

testimony substantiate lawful travel, a presumption of bona fide

passenger status arises. Such presumption cannot be displaced

by conjecture, administrative suspicion, or speculative

inconsistencies. In the absence of affirmative and persuasive

proof of any statutory exception, the default rule of strict liability

must operate in full measure.

(iv) Ticket validity window:

a) Even assuming that the three-hour validity period of the

unreserved ticket were open to question, such a technical lapse,

by itself, cannot vitiate the claim or efface the deceased's status

as a bona fide passenger. The loss, non-production, or expiry of a

ticket does not, ipso jure, negate the fact of lawful travel where

the broader evidentiary ensemble which comprises the inquest

report, police investigation papers, post-mortem findings, and

corroborative eyewitness testimony and which credibly supports

the account of an accidental fall from a moving train. The

Supreme Court in Rina Devi(supra) authoritatively clarified that

production of a valid ticket is not an indispensable prerequisite

for establishing bona fide travel; such status may equally be

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

inferred from circumstantial and attendant evidence revealing a

coherent and credible travel narrative.

b) The principle enunciated in Rina Devi (supra) delineates a two-

tier evidentiary structure that is once the claimant adduces

prima facie material suggestive of lawful travel and an untoward

incident, the onus shifts to the Railway Administration to

disprove bona fides or to establish that the case falls within one

of the narrowly construed exceptions under the proviso to

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The statutory

presumption thus created cannot be displaced by conjecture,

speculative inference, or technical irregularity; it must be met by

affirmative and cogent proof.

c) In the present case, the appellants have produced a coherent

corpus of contemporaneous official records whereby each

converging on the conclusion that the deceased accidentally fell

from a moving train in the course of travel. The Railway

Administration, on the other hand, has failed to discharge its

corresponding burden; no material has been adduced to indicate

ticket forgery, deliberate fare evasion, or contemporaneous

detection of unauthorised travel. The absence of rebuttal

evidence, coupled with the positive corroboration of the

claimants' narrative from official and eyewitness sources, leaves

no manner of doubt that the deceased was a bona fide passenger

and that his death occurred in the course of an "untoward

incident" as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2).Consequently,

the default rule of strict statutory liability under Section 124-A

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

stands fully attracted. The appellants' entitlement to Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:01

compensation thus flows not from equitable indulgence but as a

matter of statutory mandate, reflecting the beneficent and social-

protective purpose of the legislative scheme governing railway

accident claims.

VI. CONCLUSION:

7. In view of the foregoing analysis and reasoning, this Court holds that

the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death resulted from an

"untoward incident" within Section 123(c)(2). Further, it is evident

from the entire discussion that the Respondent/Railway has not been

able to establish the present case to be covered under proviso

exception to Section 124-A. It is further held that the Tribunal's

contrary conclusions are vitiated by misapplication of the burden-of-

proof rule as pronounced in Rina Devi (supra) and by importing non-

statutory defences like negligence/contributory fault proscribed by

Jameela (supra). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment dated 10.02.2021 passed in O.A. (IIU) No.165 of 2017 is set

aside.

8. The Respondent-Railway shall pay to the Appellants ₹8,00,000/-

(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards statutory compensation, together

with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident until

realisation. The amount shall be released to the claimants in accord

with their dependency shares, upon verification by the Tribunal/Court

below. The payment shall be made within TWO MONTHS from

receipt of this judgment; in default, the amount shall carry 9% p.a.