Orissa High Court

Pankaj Kumar Roul & Ors 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.161 of 2022

(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways ClaimsTribunal Act, 1987)

Pankaj Kumar Roul & Ors. .... 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. Satya Narayan Pattnaik,
Sr. Panel Counsel

CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-19.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.10.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order

dated 01.11.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in

Case No.O.A.(IIU)/12/2018, 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 21.06.2016, the deceased Kamini Roul, a bona fide passenger

holding a valid journey ticket, was travelling by the Bhubaneswar-

Bhadrak DMU Passenger Train from Bhubaneswar to New Garh

Railway Station. During the journey, she accidentally fell from the

running train at KM No. 353/30-28, between New Garh Madhupur

and Jenapur Railway Station, and died on the spot.

(ii) During the journey, the compartment was overcrowded. Due to

sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and

pull of fellow passengers, the deceased lost balance and accidentally

fell from the running train between Madhupur - Jenapur Railway

Station, resulting in death on the spot.

(iii) The appellants thereafter filed Original Application No. 12 of 2018

before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16

of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation

under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the

death of the deceased resulting from the untoward incident.

(iv) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed

five issues for consideration. After detailed examination, it

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

a victim any untoward incident. Accordingly, the claim application

was dismissed.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.11.2021 passed

in the Original Application No. 12 of 2018 by the Railways Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellants have preferred the present

appeal.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Appellants respectfully submits that the impugned judgment and

order passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar,

dismissing the Original Application in respect of the alleged

untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is erroneous,

contrary to the evidence on record, and suffers from gross

misappreciation of material facts and legal provisions.

(ii) The Tribunal observed that no journey ticket was recovered from the

deceased at the time of inquest, nor was any reference to such a ticket

found in the contemporaneous police records. Based on this, the

Tribunal held that the ticket relied upon by the appellants was likely

to be fabricated and subsequently introduced during the proceedings.

Accordingly, the Learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased failed

to prove her status as a bona fide passenger, as required under the

Railways Act.

(iii) The Appellants have further submitted that the contemporaneous

official records issued by the Police Authorities -- including the

Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report, and Final Investigation Report

-- constitute unimpeachable documentary evidence, all of which

conclusively establish that the deceased succumbed to injuries

sustained in an untoward incident occurring during the course of a

lawful and bona fide train journey. It is further contended that the

Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim, failed to take judicial

notice of such official documents, which carry a presumption of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

correctness under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The

Tribunal's omission to properly appreciate these evidentiary

materials, and its consequent rejection of the claim on the conjectural

premise that the death might have fallen within one of the exceptions

enumerated under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act,

1989, is a manifest misapplication of law. Such an approach not only

disregards the remedial and welfare-oriented character of the

legislation but also runs counter to the settled jurisprudence laid

down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya

Kumar1 and Union of India v. Rina Devi2 wherein it has been

categorically held that Section 124A embodies a regime of strict

liability, admitting no exception save those expressly provided in the

statute. The impugned findings, being contrary to the evidentiary

record and the settled legal position, are therefore ex facie perverse,

arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eye of law.

(iv) The Appellants have assailed the finding of the Learned Tribunal

attributing the cause of death to be a suicidal act, contending that such

a conclusion is founded solely on conjecture and surmise,

unsupported by any credible evidence on record. This Court finds

merit in the submission that the said inference is per se unsustainable

in law, being contrary to both the evidentiary record and the settled

principles governing proof of untoward incidents under Section 124A

of the Railways Act. The testimony of Appellant No. 2, examined as

A.W.1, clearly and unequivocally establishes that the deceased was a

(2008) 9 SCC 527 2 (2019) 3 SCC 572

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

bona fide passenger, having personally witnessed him purchasing a

valid journey ticket prior to commencement of the travel. In the

absence of any cogent rebuttal by the Respondent-Indian Railways,

the presumption in favour of bona fide passengership stands

unrebutted. The Tribunal's finding, therefore, suffers from manifest

perversity and non-application of mind, being devoid of legal and

factual justification, and is consequently liable to be quashed and set

aside.

(v) Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, being a salutary provision

enacted in furtherance of the State's welfare mandate, engrafts within

its ambit the doctrine of strict or no-fault liability, thereby statutorily

fastening the Railway Administration with an absolute obligation to

compensate the dependents of a deceased passenger whose death

ensues from an untoward incident, save in circumstances expressly

delineated within the proviso thereto -- none of which are attracted

ex facie to the facts at hand. The provision, being inherently remedial

and social-welfare oriented, commands a liberal and purposive

interpretative approach, eschewing any pedantic or restrictive

construction that may frustrate its beneficent object. Once the

foundational facts establishing bona fide passengership and death

consequent upon an untoward incident stand proved, the liability of

the Railways arises ipso jure and operates automatically, divorced

from considerations of fault, negligence, or mens rea. Any deviation

from this statutory mandate would amount to a distortion of

legislative intent and a subversion of the settled principles of welfare

jurisprudence. The contrary finding of the Learned Tribunal, being

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

vitiated by manifest perversity, misdirection in law, and disregard of

the statutory presumption embedded in Section 124A, is, therefore,

unsustainable and warrants appellate interference.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the

following submissions:

(i) In adjudications emanating under Section 124A of the Railways Act,

1989, the evidentiary onus at the threshold indubitably rests upon the

claimant to establish, upon the touchstone of the preponderance of

probabilities, the foundational or jurisdictional facts necessary to

trigger the statutory presumption of liability -- namely, that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the fatality in question

was occasioned by an untoward incident within the statutory

contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The discharge of this

evidentiary burden is a sine qua non to the invocation of the remedial

jurisdiction under the said provision. In the present cause, the

Appellants have manifestly fallen short of satisfying this requirement.

(ii) A meticulous scrutiny of the contemporaneous documentary

corpus and the surrounding factual matrix militates against the

hypothesis of an accidental fall from a moving train and, contrarily,

yields a preponderant inference of a self-inflicted or suicidal run-over.

Such conduct, being ex facie subsumed within the exclusionary ambit

of clause (a) of the proviso to Section 124A, is statutorily immunized

from the operation of the rule of strict liability that otherwise attaches

under the main provision. Ergo, the occurrence in question cannot,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

either de jure or de facto, be subsumed within the definitional ambit

of an "untoward incident" as envisaged under the Act. Consequently,

no compensatory liability can, in law, be fastened upon the

Respondent-Railway Administration, the claim being barred by the

express legislative exclusion engrafted in the statutory scheme.

(iii) The Learned Tribunal has, in the considered exercise of its fact-

finding jurisdiction, rightly discredited and discarded the testimony

of A.W.2, Natabar Behera, upon a reasoned appreciation of the

evidentiary record. The Tribunal correctly noted that the witness's

deposition was replete with material inconsistencies and

embellishments, and appeared to be actuated by extraneous

considerations and mala fide intent, ostensibly with the object of

facilitating or fortifying a claim for compensation. In the absence of

corroborative material to lend credence to his version, the testimony

of A.W.2 could not be accorded any probative sanctity or evidentiary

weight. The Tribunal, therefore, justifiably concluded that such

evidence, being tainted by apparent motivation and lacking in

veracity, was unworthy of reliance either in fact or in law.

(iv) The Learned Tribunal, upon a scrupulous appraisal of the post-

mortem report and attendant medico-legal materials, observed that

the medical opinion attributed the cause of death to "craniocerebral

injury due to dashing of head by running train." Proceeding from this

forensic premise, the Tribunal engaged in inferential reasoning to

conclude that the deceased was, in all probability, either knocked

down by a moving train while unlawfully traversing or loitering upon

the railway track, or that the fatality was self-inflicted, indicative of a

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

suicidal act -- a conclusion further reinforced by the proximity of the

deceased's residence to the place of occurrence. These inferred

possibilities, in the Tribunal's view, were irreconcilable with the

appellants' narrative of an accidental fall from a running train.

Consequently, the Tribunal has held that the death does not fall within

the definitional ambit of an "untoward incident" as contemplated

under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The medico-legal

findings, when read conjointly with the surrounding factual matrix,

were thus treated as possessing determinative probative value,

forming the substratum of the Tribunal's conclusion that the claim

was statutorily excluded from the purview of Section 124A, and that

no compensatory liability could, therefore, be fastened on the Railway

Administration.

(v) The Appellants have failed to discharge the foundational burden of

establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling

under the authority of a valid journey ticket at that point in time. The

inquest report and other contemporaneous investigative documents

unmistakably reveal that no travel ticket was recovered from the

person or effects of the deceased, thereby eroding the evidentiary

substratum of the claim. The Respondents have further urged, with

persuasive force, that there was no contemporaneous record or report

of Alarm Chain Pulling following the alleged fall, which circumstance

materially undermines the appellants' narrative and casts serious

doubt upon the authenticity of the claim. In the absence of any cogent,

credible, or corroborative evidence establishing bona fide

passengership, the indispensable precondition for the invocation of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

statutory liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

remains unfulfilled. The claim, thus bereft of the requisite factual and

legal foundation, stands rendered unsustainable and non-

maintainable within the statutory framework, as the sine qua non for

attracting the principle of strict liability is conspicuously absent.

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 prove that the deceased

was a bona fide passenger and that her death resulted from an "untoward

incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal found that the journey ticket was not

produced or found, which weighed against establishing the deceased's

status as a bona fide passenger.

7. It is further noted that the statutory investigation report and the post-

mortem report both indicates that the cause of death was due to the head

being dashed by a running train as result of trespassing. The reports

suggests that this scenario is inconsistent with the death of a passenger

falling from a running train and point instead to the possibility of a

suicidal death.

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

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

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

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. The Appellants have manifestly failed to discharge the foundational

burden incumbent upon them to establish that the deceased was a bona

fide passenger travelling under the authority of a valid journey ticket at

the material point of time. The inquest proceedings, coupled with other

contemporaneous investigative records, unequivocally reveal that no

journey ticket was recovered from the person or effects of the deceased,

thereby vitiating the evidentiary substratum upon which the claim seeks

to repose. The Respondents have further contended -- and not without

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

juridical plausibility -- that there exists no contemporaneous record or

report of Alarm Chain Pulling or any ancillary circumstance indicative of

an accidental fall, which omission materially debilitates the evidentiary

coherence of the appellants' narrative and fortifies the inference of

embellishment or fabrication. In the absence of any cogent, consistent, or

corroborative material establishing bona fide passengership, the

indispensable factual substratum for the invocation of statutory liability

under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 stands unsubstantiated. The

claim, thus bereft of its evidentiary and legal moorings, is rendered

unsustainable in limine and non-maintainable within the contours of the

statutory scheme, for attraction of the doctrine of strict liability remains

conspicuously unfulfilled.

13. At the very threshold, it becomes necessary to delineate the statutory

architecture that governs the field of liability under the Railways Act,

1989. Section 124A of the Act incorporates within its fold the doctrine of

strict or no-fault liability, thereby dispensing with the requirement of

proving negligence, wrongful act, or default as a precondition to the

accrual of compensatory entitlement. The provision, in clear and

unambiguous terms, mandates that once it stands established that the

death or injury in question has ensued from an "untoward incident" as

defined under Section 123(c) of the Act, the Railway Administration

becomes statutorily bound to pay compensation to the victim or to the

legal heirs of the deceased passenger. The legislative intent underlying

this provision is manifestly remedial and welfare-oriented, aimed at

ensuring certainty and uniformity in compensation for victims of railway

mishaps. The liability so created is absolute in character, admitting of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

exception only to the extent expressly carved out in the proviso to Section

124A -- which, being in the nature of an exclusionary clause, is to be

construed narrowly and restrictively.

14. On the issue of bona fide passengership, this Court is constrained to

observe that the Ld. Tribunal fell into a manifest error of both law and

appreciation of evidence in placing disproportionate reliance upon the

non-recovery of the journey ticket from the person of the deceased,

thereby drawing an adverse inference wholly unsupported by the

evidentiary record. The conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide

passenger rests upon a misdirection as to the nature of the claimant's

evidentiary burden under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and an

unduly restrictive construction of the statutory scheme intended to confer

the benefit of no-fault compensation.

15. Upon a meticulous reappraisal of the record, this Court is satisfied that

the bona fide passengership of the deceased stands duly established. The

inquest report and the post-mortem report--being contemporaneous,

official documents prepared in the ordinary course of public duty--carry

a presumption of correctness under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872, and corroborate the surrounding circumstances indicative of

lawful travel and the occurrence of the incident during a train journey.

The cumulative probative effect of these materials leaves no manner of

doubt that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger at the

relevant time. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary,

being vitiated by a misappreciation of evidence and a misapplication of

the governing legal principles, is held to be perverse and unsustainable in

law.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

16. In view of the settled legal position, once the bona fide status of the

deceased is established by credible, cogent, and contemporaneous

evidence, the statutory liability of the Railway Administration to

compensate under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 stands

automatically attracted and becomes enforceable ipso jure. The

jurisprudence on the subject is now well crystallised that mere non-

recovery or absence of a journey ticket at the time of inquest cannot, in

isolation, defeat or vitiate an otherwise legitimate and substantiated

claim, particularly when other reliable materials -- such as the inquest

report, post-mortem report, and investigative records -- affirm the

deceased's lawful presence on the train and the occurrence of an

untoward incident during the course of travel. The statutory presumption

in favour of the claimant, being anchored in the welfare-oriented and

remedial purpose of the legislation, cannot be displaced on the basis of

conjectural reasoning or negative inferences drawn from procedural

lapses. Any contrary approach would undermine the beneficial intent of

the statute and frustrate the legislative object of ensuring prompt and

equitable compensation to victims or their dependents.

17. Reliance may be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in

Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India3, wherein it was categorically held that

the initial burden of proof under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

lies upon the claimant, which may be satisfactorily discharged by filing

an affidavit setting out the relevant and material facts. Upon such

discharge, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Railway Administration to

2024 INSC 603

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

rebut or disprove the claim by adducing cogent and credible evidence.

The Court further emphasised that the mere non-recovery of a journey

ticket at the time of inquest cannot, in itself, constitute a valid ground to

disbelieve the claimant's case or to negate the plea of bona fide

passengership, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and

official records corroborate lawful travel and the occurrence of an

untoward incident.

18. Similar principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of

India v. Rina Dev4 , wherein it was held that Section 124A of the Railways

Act, 1989 embodies a statutory regime of strict liability and mandates

payment of compensation in the event of death or injury arising from an

untoward incident, irrespective of any wrongful act, negligence, or fault

on the part of the Railway Administration. The Court underscored that

the beneficial object of the legislation must guide its interpretation and

that the rights of passengers or their dependents to compensation cannot

be defeated by technicalities or conjectural reasoning unsupported by

evidence.

19. In the present case, although the Applicants were unable to produce the

journey ticket, having evidently lost it in the course of the incident, the

evidentiary corpus, viewed cumulatively, unequivocally substantiates

the plea of bona fide passengership and the occurrence of an untoward

incident. The inquest report, post-mortem report, and final investigation

report--each a contemporaneous official record prepared in the ordinary

course of public duty--uniformly attest that the deceased met his death

(2019) 3 SCC 572

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

from an accidental fall from a running train. These documents, carrying a

presumption of regularity under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872, lend compelling corroboration to the Applicants' version. The

testimony of A.W.2 further affirms that the deceased had purchased a

valid journey ticket prior to boarding, an assertion corroborated by both

oral and documentary evidence. Collectively, this evidentiary matrix

constitutes credible and cogent proof, firmly establishing that the death

occurred in the course of lawful travel and squarely falls within the

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

Railways Act, 1989.

20. Per contra, the Respondents have failed to adduce any cogent, credible,

or legally tenable evidence capable of displacing the evidentiary

foundation of the Applicants' case. Their reliance upon the speculative

and inferential observations contained in the DRM's inquiry report is

wholly misconceived in law, such reports being merely administrative

fact-finding exercises undertaken post facto and devoid of binding

probative value within the adjudicatory framework. In the absence of any

substantive or persuasive rebuttal from the Respondents, and having

regard to the coherent, corroborated, and contemporaneous evidentiary

material adduced by the Applicants, this Court is persuaded to hold that

the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger and the occurrence of an

untoward incident stand firmly and conclusively established. The

statutory liability of the Railway Administration under Section 124A of

the Railways Act, 1989 thus stands irresistibly attracted, entitling the

claimants to just compensation as contemplated under the benevolent

legislative scheme.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

21. The legal position stands firmly crystallised in Union of India v.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar5, wherein the Supreme Court authoritatively

held that the provisions for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989

constitute a piece of beneficial and welfare legislation, and therefore

warrant a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with the

legislative intent to afford relief to victims of railway accidents. The Court

unequivocally observed that to construe the expression "accidental falling

of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" under Section 123(c) of the

Act in a narrow or restrictive sense would defeat the object of the

legislation and unjustly deprive numerous bona fide passengers of their

rightful entitlement to compensation.

22. Applying this settled principle to the present case, the incident in question

squarely falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as contemplated

under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. None of the statutory

exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted in

the factual matrix of this case. Consequently, the statutory liability of the

Railway Administration is ipso facto attracted, and the claim for

compensation is legally maintainable within the framework of strict

liability envisaged by the Act.

VI. CONCLUSION:

23. Upon an exhaustive appraisal of the evidentiary matrix and the statutory

scheme, this Court is satisfied that the Appellants have discharged the

requisite burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger and that his demise resulted from an "untoward incident"

(2008) 9 SCC 527

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2), read with Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989. None of the exclusionary contingencies contemplated

under the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted in the present factual

conspectus. The corollary that ensues is that the statutory liability of the

Railway Administration, operating under the regime of strict liability,

stands incontrovertibly invoked.

24. Ergo, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2021, rendered by

the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application

No.12 of 2018, are hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal consequently

succeeds, the claim is held to be maintainable in law, and the Respondent-

Union of India (Railways) stands statutorily obligated to pay

compensation to the Appellants in conformity with Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989, together with interest as permissible under law.

25. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

26. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight

lakhs) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the

amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be