Orissa High Court
Santosh Ku. Sahoo vs Union Of India on 10 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 135 of 2020
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways ClaimsTribunal Act, 1987)
Santosh Ku. Sahoo .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Saa, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-18.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and order
dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in
Case No.OA-II(u)/2017/0015, which dismissed the claim application for
compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an
'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways
Act, 1989.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) On 19.01.2017, the deceased Krushna Chandra Sahoo was travelling
from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar on the strength of valid journey
ticket purchased from Berhampur Railway Station bearing the No.
VYA-51990424 by the Bisakha Express Train.
(ii) During the course of the journey the compartment was
overcrowded, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of
brakes and the push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost his
balance, fell from the running train in between Lingaraj and
Bhubaneswar Railway Station, as a result he was succumbed with
injuries and died on the spot.
(iii) The Appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 15 of
2017 before the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench, invoking the jurisdiction vested under Section 16 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and preferred a claim under
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking statutory
compensation on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly
occasioned by an "untoward incident" as contemplated under
Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.
(iv) Upon perusal of the pleadings and evidentiary materials adduced
by the parties, the Learned Tribunal was pleased to frame five
distinct issues for determination. After an elaborate evaluation of
the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal
ultimately returned findings to the effect that the deceased did not
qualify as a bona fide passenger, nor could the occurrence be
brought within the statutory ambit of an "untoward incident"
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
under the Act. On such premises, the Original Application came to
be dismissed as devoid of merit.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020
rendered in Original Application No. 15 of 2017 by the Learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, whereby the claim
petition was dismissed, the Appellants have invoked the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court by preferring the present appeal, assailing
the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the impugned order on
both factual and jurisdictional grounds.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellant submitted that the dismissal of the Original
Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in respect
of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased
is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from
misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the
impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.
(ii) The Appellant contended that when several documents issued by the
Police clearly establish the death of the deceased on account of the
untoward incident, which occurred in the course of the journey and
the reporting of the incident was done by the gangman of the Railways
to the Station Master who further intimate the local police and the case
was registered.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) The Investigating Agency's Final Report, read conjointly with the
Post-Mortem Report and the Inquest Proceedings, unequivocally
substantiates that the death in question was occasioned by a fall from
a moving train. The said documents, being contemporaneous official
records prepared in due discharge of statutory duty, carry a
presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent and credible
evidence, which, in the present case, the Respondent Railways has
conspicuously failed to furnish. The Learned Tribunal's reliance upon
the DRM's report--an administrative document lacking evidentiary
sanctity and unsupported by ocular testimony or primary proof--
stands vitiated for want of probative weight and cannot, in law or on
fact, suffice to overturn the consistent and unimpeached conclusions
emanating from the statutory and investigative materials on record.
(iv) The Learned Tribunal, without duly adverting to or taking judicial
cognizance of the attendant factual circumstances emanating from the
evidentiary corpus, manifestly erred in rejecting the claim application
upon the untenable premise that the death of the deceased was
attributable to one of the statutory exceptions engrafted under the
proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the
deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of any
"untoward incident" within the contemplation of Section 123(c)(2)
thereof. The findings so returned, being contrary to the preponderant
weight of evidence, bereft of juridical foundation, and rendered in
derogation of the settled principles governing the presumption of
liability envisaged under the beneficial scheme of the Act, are ex facie
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
perverse, legally unsustainable, and consequently liable to be set
aside.
(v) The Ld. Tribunal has fallen into a manifest and patent error of law in
returning a finding that the death of the deceased was suicidal in
nature--a conclusion resting entirely upon conjecture and surmise,
and devoid of any credible or substantive evidentiary foundation.
Such an inference, arrived at in the absence of cogent proof, stands in
direct contravention of the settled evidentiary principles and militates
against the statutory presumption of accidental causation embodied
in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The deposition of Appellant
No. 1, examined as AW-1, both in her examination-in-chief and cross-
examination, unequivocally establishes that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger, a finding further fortified by the recovery of a valid
journey ticket from his possession at the site of occurrence. The
cumulative evidentiary record thus unmistakably points to the
conclusion that the deceased accidentally fell from a running train in
the course of travel, thereby bringing the occurrence squarely within
the ambit of an "untoward incident" as contemplated under Section
123(c)(2) of the Act. The contrary finding recorded by the Learned
Tribunal, being perverse, contrary to the weight of evidence, and
inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying the no-fault liability
regime enshrined under Section 124A, is consequently unsustainable
in law and warrants interference by this Court.
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 alleged "untoward incidents," the initial
evidentiary burden indubitably rests upon the claimant to establish
the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory presumption
of accidental causation contemplated under Section 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989. In the instant case, the Appellants have, however,
failed to satisfactorily discharge this primary onus. The surrounding
circumstances, when objectively assessed in the light of the available
record, do not lend credence to the theory of an accidental fall from a
running train; rather, they unmistakably point towards a self-inflicted
act culminating in a suicidal run-over. Such conduct squarely falls
within the exceptions expressly engrafted in the proviso to Section
124A of the Act and thereby excludes the operation of the principle of
strict or no-fault liability otherwise attaching to the Railway
Administration under the statutory scheme. Consequently, the claim
petition, being devoid of merit, stands rightly dismissed, as no
vicarious or statutory liability can, in law, be fastened upon the
Respondent Railways in relation to the incident in question.
(ii) The Learned Tribunal, upon a meticulous appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has rightly disbelieved the
testimony of A.W.1, the son of the deceased, observing that his
deposition appeared to be actuated by self-interest and guided by an
ulterior motive to secure compensation under the guise of an
"untoward incident." The material inconsistencies, embellishments,
and contradictions discernible in his testimony, when juxtaposed with
the surrounding circumstances and absence of any credible
independent corroboration, clearly detract from its probative worth.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
The Tribunal, therefore, was fully justified in holding that such
evidence, being tainted by mala fides and coloured by pecuniary
inducement rather than veracity, could not be accorded any
evidentiary sanctity in the adjudication of the claim.
(iii) The Appellants have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket. Although the
inquest purportedly recorded the recovery of a ticket from the person
of the deceased, no such document has been produced or proved in
evidence. The solitary reference to its existence in the police report,
being uncorroborated and hearsay in nature, lacks probative value.
The absence of primary evidence to substantiate bona fide
passengership renders the claim inherently doubtful and indicative of
an attempt to fabricate a case for compensation. In the absence of
cogent and admissible proof fulfilling the essential precondition
under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the statutory liability of
the Respondent Railways cannot be invoked. Accordingly, the claim
is devoid of merit and liable to dismissal.
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.
6. On Issues 1, 2 and 3, which were taken up together, the Tribunal observed
that the initial burden lay upon the applicants to establish that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an
"untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal found that the
journey ticket was found but there is no such document is recorded in
support of it.
7. It is further observed that the statutory investigation report, when read in
conjunction with the statements of the train guard and driver, reveals that
neither had any knowledge or observation of the alleged incident during
the course of the journey. The inquiry additionally notes that, apart from
the body having been found severed into two parts at the waist, no other
external injuries were discernible. The Respondents have contended that
the deceased was discovered lying on the railway track in a mutilated
condition, which, in the ordinary course of events, would not be the
natural or probable consequence of an accidental fall from a moving train.
On such factual premises, it is urged that the surrounding circumstances
unmistakably bear the indicia of a deliberate act of self-destruction,
thereby bringing the occurrence within the ambit of a suicidal death
falling squarely under the statutory exceptions engrafted in the proviso
to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances does not demonstrate the
accidental fall from the train, and therefore the occurrence was not an
"untoward incident". Such is sine qua non of compensation under Section
124A had not been established. It is accordingly held that the deceased
was not a bona fide passenger, that the incident was not an "untoward
incident", and that Railways stood protected under the exception clause
of Section 124A of the Act.
9. Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In
view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application
was thus dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
11. The central questions that arise for consideration are:
(i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
(ii) whether the incident amounts to an 'untoward incident' within
the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989?
(iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability
by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
12. This Court observed that once the primary facts, namely, the death of a
passenger in an "untoward incident" and that such passenger was a bona
fide passenger, stood established, the liability of the Railway
Administration became absolute. The Court further emphasised that the
absence of any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the
Railway Administration was of no consequence, inasmuch as the
provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act embody the principle of
strict liability.
13. The Learned Tribunal entertained a doubt as whether the incident
constituted a fall from the train, speculating instead that the death might
have been occasioned by a run-over. This Court is of the considered view
that such a distinction is legally untenable. It is a matter of common
occurrence that an accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the passenger being run over either by the same train or by another,
thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such a subsequent
development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as an
"accidental fall". There is no material on record to suggest any alternative
hypothesis, such as the deceased being present on the railway track
independent of the train journey. On the contrary, the contemporaneous
records, viz. the inquest report, post-mortem examination and the final
police report, unequivocally attribute the cause of death to a fall from the
train. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the incident squarely
qualifies as an "untoward incident" under the statutory scheme, entitling
the claimants to the benefit of compensation.
14. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section
124A of the Railways Act, 1989, enacts a regime of strict liability. The
provision stipulates that once it is established that the death or injury has
occurred as a result of an "untoward incident", the Railway
Administration is bound to pay compensation, irrespective of any
negligence or default on its part, unless the case falls within the specific
exceptions craved out in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act.
15. On the issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, this
Court finds merit in the submission of the Appellants. The Appellants
have consistently asserted that the deceased was travelling on a valid
journey ticket bearing the VYA -51990424 issued from Berhampur
Railway Station, which was recovered from his possession during the
course of investigation. The inquest report prepared by the police duly
records, the contrary finding of the Learned Tribunal that there was no
document evidencing the said ticket is unsustainable. It is pertinent to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
note that the Respondent- Railways neither pleaded nor adduced any
evidence to discredit the authenticity of the said ticket. Accordingly, the
Court is constrained to hold that the deceased was a bona fide passenger
within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989.
16. Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Court in Union
of India v. Rina Devi1, wherein it was held that Section 124A of the
Railways Act provides for payment of compensation whether or not there
has been wrongful act, negligence or fault on the part of the Railway
Administration in the case of an accident in case 'untoward incident'.
17. In the present case, the applicants produced the valid journey ticket,
Inquest Report, Post mortem report and final report, all of which record
that the deceased died on account of accidental fall from a running train.
Further, AW-1 categorically deposed that a valid journey ticket was
recovered from the deceased, which fact stood duly corroborated during
evidence. These are the direct testimonies of AW-1, duly supported by
contemporaneous police and medical records. The Respondents, on the
other hand, failed to adduce any cogent material to rebut such evidence,
and sought instead to rely upon speculative observations made in the
DRM's inquiry.
18. Upon weighing the evidence on record, the Court finds that the applicants
have adduced sufficient material to establish that the deceased was
travelling on a valid journey ticket and that he accidentally fell from the
train in between Lingaraj and Bhubaneswar Railway Station. Such an
occurrence clearly falls within the ambit of "untoward incident" as
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
defined under Section 123(c) and does not dislodge the claim within the
framework of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
19. This position stands fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar2, wherein
it was held that the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation and must, therefore, be accorded a liberal
and purposive interpretation. The Court further observed that adopting
a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers under Section-123(c) of the Railways Act
would defeat the object of the legislation and unjustly deprive a large
number of bona fide railway passengers of their rightful claim to
compensation in railway accidents.
20. The underlying object of the statutory scheme is to ensure prompt and
equitable compensation to the victims of railway accidents, rather than to
entangle them in protracted proceedings of fault-finding or negligence.
The denial of relief by the Learned Tribunal runs counter to these settle
principles. In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing the
applicability of the statutory exceptions, the death of a bona fide
passenger on account of a fall from a train squarely fastens statutory
liability upon the Respondents- Railways to pay compensation and are
accordingly liable to be set aside.
21. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the incident falls
squarely within the ambit of an "untoward incident". None of the
statutory exceptions to liability enumerated under the proviso to Section
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
124A stand attracted in the present case. Consequently, the claim
application is maintainable in law, and the liability of the Respondent-
Railways to compensate the claimants stands established.
VI. CONCLUSION:
22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
Appellant has established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger
and that his death occurred as a result of an "untoward incident" within
the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways
Act, 1989. None of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section
124A are attracted.
23. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No.OA-II(u)/2017/0015 is
set aside.
24. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
25. The Appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight
lakhs) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the
amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be
disbursed to the Appellant in accordance with law.
26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Oct., 2025
