Orissa High Court
Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India on 17 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: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No.225 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Sushila Haro & Ors. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India, represented .... Respondent(s)
through its General Manager,
South Eastern Railway, Garden
Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant : Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
On behalf of
Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
For Respondent : Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Sr. PC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order
dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench, Bhubaneswar in Case No.OA/IIU/296/2017 which dismissed
their 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:
(i) As per the original claim application, on the date of the incident
i.e. 06.08.2017, the deceased Ajit Haro was travelling from Angul
to Rourkela on the strength of valid journey ticket bearing the No.
UYA-83483819 by Puri-Rourkela Passenger Train.
(ii) The Appellants submit that during the course of the journey, the
compartment in which the deceased was travelling was heavily
overcrowded, and owing to a sudden jerk caused by the abrupt
application of brakes, coupled with the push and pull of fellow
passengers, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell
from the running train between Panposh and Rourkela Railway
Stations, resulting in his instantaneous death at the spot.
(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 296
of 2017 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 in the untoward incident.
(iv) On the basis of the pleadings and evidentiary materials adduced
by the respective parties, the Learned Tribunal was pleased to
frame five specific issues for determination. However, upon a
purported appreciation of the evidence, the Learned Tribunal fell
into grave error in holding that the deceased was neither a bona
fide passenger nor a victim of an untoward incident within the
meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Such
findings, being contrary to the weight of evidence and settled
legal principles, are ex facie perverse and unsustainable in law.
Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2021
passed in the Original Application No. 296 of 2017 by the
Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellants have
preferred the present appeal.
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 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 contrary to the weight of the evidences on record,
suffers from mis-appreciation of the material facts, and otherwise is
bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set
aside.
(ii) The Appellants submit that the contemporaneous documentary
evidence, particularly the records and reports issued by the Police
authorities, unequivocally demonstrate that the deceased met with
death as a direct consequence of an untoward incident occurring in
the course of his bona fide journey as a passenger. However, the
Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the matter, failed to appreciate
these material pieces of evidence in their proper legal perspective
and instead proceeded to render the impugned judgment on
conjectural and presumptive reasoning. The Tribunal has further
erred in placing unwarranted reliance upon the DRM Report, which,
being a post-incident document prepared much belatedly
subsequent to the occurrence and after institution of the claim
application, cannot be accorded overriding evidentiary value over
the contemporaneous police records.
(iii) The Learned Tribunal, without adverting to or taking judicial notice
of the relevant facts, circumstances, and evidentiary materials
available on record, has proceeded to erroneously reject the claim
application on a wholly misconceived premise that the death of the
deceased might have occurred under one of the exceptions engrafted
in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The
Learned Tribunal, while recording such findings, has further
misdirected itself in law by concluding that the deceased was
neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an untoward incident
within the contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act. The
aforesaid conclusions, being contrary to the weight of evidence,
suffer from manifest illegality, perversity, and non-application of
mind, and are, therefore, ex facie unsustainable and liable to be
quashed and set aside.
(iv) The Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency, together
with the Post-Mortem Report and the Inquest Proceedings,
conclusively establish that the death of the deceased occurred as a
direct consequence of a fall from a running train during the course
of his journey. These contemporaneous and official records leave no
manner of doubt as to the cause and nature of the incident.
Significantly, no cogent or credible evidence was adduced by the
Respondent-Railways to controvert or rebut the said findings, and
hence the same stand unrebutted and uncontroverted on record.
(v) It is a settled principle of law, consistently affirmed by judicial
precedents, that the initial burden lies upon the Railway
Administration to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) read with Section
124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Learned Tribunal, however, has
fallen into patent error in law by erroneously shifting this burden
onto the claimants, contrary to the settled legal position laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Such an
approach reflects a clear misapplication of the statutory
presumption operating in favour of the passenger and has resulted
in a manifest miscarriage of justice, vitiating the impugned
judgment in its entirety.
(vi) It is submitted that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, being a
piece of beneficial and welfare legislation, is required to be
interpreted in a liberal and purposive manner so as to advance the
object of social justice underlying the statute. The provision
embodies the principle of strict liability on the part of the Railway
Administration in cases of death or injury arising out of an untoward
incident during the course of a bona fide journey. Unless the case
squarely falls within one of the express exceptions carved out in the
proviso to Section 124A, the liability of the Railways to compensate
the victim or the legal heirs of the deceased is absolute and does not
depend upon proof of negligence or fault.
(vii) In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Learned Tribunal
has gravely erred in law and on facts in dismissing the claim
application despite the existence of ample oral and documentary
evidence conclusively establishing 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) of the Act. The
findings recorded by the Learned Tribunal are manifestly perverse,
contrary to the evidentiary record, and unsustainable in the eye of
law. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award are liable to
be quashed and set aside, and the Appellants are entitled to
compensation along with statutory interest as envisaged under
Section 124A of the said Act.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
5. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the
following submissions:
(i) It is submitted that in proceedings arising out of untoward incidents
under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the initial onus upon the
claimant is limited to establishing, on the basis of the preponderance of
probabilities, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the
death occurred as a result of an untoward incident during the course of
a valid journey. Once such foundational facts are proved, a statutory
presumption operates in favour of the claimant, and the burden then
shifts to the Railway Administration to disprove the same by
adducing cogent, credible, and affirmative evidence. In the absence of
such rebuttal, the liability of the Railways to compensate under
Section 124A becomes strict and absolute, irrespective of fault or
negligence, consistent with the beneficial and welfare character of the
legislation.
(ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily
discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon them under Section
124A of the Railways Act. The evidentiary materials placed on record
do not conclusively establish that the deceased had actually boarded
the train in question, nor do they substantiate that he fell therefrom
and sustained fatal injuries as a direct consequence of such fall. In the
absence of proof of these foundational facts, the alleged incident
cannot, in law, be categorized as an untoward incident or an accidental
fall from a running train within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of
the said Act. Accordingly, no statutory liability can be fastened upon
the Respondent-Railways to pay compensation under Section 124A.
(iii) The Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of
A.W.1, the wife of the deceased, as her deposition lacked credibility
and appeared to be tainted with exaggeration and material
inconsistencies. The Tribunal, upon due appreciation of evidence,
correctly observed that her statements seemed to be motivated by an
ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather than being based on
truthful narration of facts. Hence, her testimony could not be
accorded any probative value and was rightly discarded as
unreliable.
(iv) The Appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of
proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a
valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. The inquest
proceedings, as well as other contemporaneous records, do not
indicate recovery of any travel ticket from the person or belongings of
the deceased. The Respondents have further contended that the ticket
subsequently produced by the claimants was a fabricated document,
allegedly planted with the mala fide intent of substantiating a false
claim for compensation. In the absence of any cogent, reliable, and
corroborative evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger, the foundational requirement for attracting the statutory
liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 remains
unfulfilled. Consequently, the claim application is rendered
untenable in law and not maintainable.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
6. The Tribunal, while dismissing the claim application, recorded the
following key observations and conclusions:
(i) The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the
deceased was not established to be a bona fide passenger. It found
that the journey ticket allegedly recovered, was a later insertion and
not genuine. This conclusion was drawn after noting discrepancies
between the inquest report and the post-mortem challan entries.
Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be
sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased.
(ii) The Tribunal emphasized that at the time of the inquest, no journey
ticket was recovered from found deceased's possession. The court
found it "inexplicable" that the post- mortem doctor could have
recorded the presence of a ticket when earlier police papers had not
documented the same. This inconsistency further undermined the
authenticity of the alleged ticket and contributed to the rejection of
the claim.
(iii)It is further noted that neither the on-duty guard nor the loco pilot of
the alleged train reported witnessing any untoward incident during
the journey. Moreover, there is an absence of any eyewitness or co-
passenger testimony to substantiate the claim that the deceased fell
from the running train. This lack of direct evidence seriously
undermines the assertion that the death occurred due to an accident
during the course of travel.
(iv) The Tribunal held that such circumstances, as they stand, do not
demonstrate an accidental fall from the train, and therefore, the
occurrence cannot be classified as an "untoward incident". Since
establishing such an incident is a sine qua non for claiming
compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, this essential
requirement remains unfulfilled. And consequently, the Railways
are protected under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act.
(v) The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the
Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) Report, observing that the
same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants
during the course of proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, treated
the said report as a material piece of corroborative evidence
supporting the Respondents' contention that the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger and that no incident of accidental fall from a
running train had in fact occurred. This uncontroverted report, in
the considered view of the Tribunal, lent substantial credence to the
Respondents' version and consequently fortified the ultimate
conclusion leading to the dismissal of the claim application
(vi) The medical opinion expressed in the postmortem, noted that the
deceased died from neurogenic shock due to complete transaction of
the head, with the death classified as accidental. However, it
emphasized the burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish
that the death resulted specifically from accidental fall from the
running train. Since the claimants failed to provide satisfactory
evidence to meet this burden, the claim compensation under Section
124A of the Railways Act, 1989 was rightly rejected.
(vii) Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were decided against the
claimants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal declined to
examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim
application was thus dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court. The central questions that arise for consideration are:
a. whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
b. whether the incident amounts to an 'untoward incident' within
the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989? And
c. whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability
by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
8. The Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently observed
that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies the principle of
strict liability, also referred to as no-fault liability, in cases of railway
accidents or untoward incidents. Consequently, once a case falls within
the ambit of Section 124A, the question of negligence or fault becomes
wholly immaterial, and liability of the Railway Administration to pay
compensation arises automatically, except in cases expressly covered by
the statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso to the said section.
9. This Court deems it appropriate to advert to the constitutional
philosophy enshrined under Article 38 of the Constitution of India,
which mandates the State to secure and promote the welfare of the
people by ensuring a social order permeated by justice--social,
economic, and political. In pursuance of this constitutional obligation,
Parliament has enacted various social welfare legislations that embody
the principle of strict liability, aimed at providing prompt and equitable
compensation to victims of accidents or mishaps arising out of public
utility services, irrespective of fault or negligence. These enactments,
including Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, represent the
legislative commitment to the ideal of social justice and the protection of
vulnerable citizens, ensuring that the State and its instrumentalities
remain accountable in situations where individuals suffer injury or loss
of life in the course of availing essential public services.
10. In this regard, reliance is rightly placed upon the landmark judgment
of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta &Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors1wherein the Court evolved and affirmed the
principle of absolute liability in respect of enterprises engaged in
hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The Hon'ble Court
categorically held that such liability operates independently of, and
without the limitations of, the exceptions recognised in Rylands v.
Fletcher2. It was further enunciated that any enterprise carrying on such
inherently dangerous operations owes an absolute and non-delegable
duty to the community to ensure that no harm results from its activities.
This doctrine, founded upon considerations of social justice and
welfare, imposes a heightened standard of care and accountability on
1 (1987) 1 SCC 395
(1868) LR 3 HL 330
public and private undertakings alike, thereby reinforcing the
protective and compensatory objectives underlying welfare legislations
such as Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
11. It may further be observed that once the foundational facts -- namely,
the occurrence of the death of a passenger in an "untoward incident"
and the establishment that such passenger was a bona fide passenger --
stand proved on record, the liability of the Railway Administration
under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 becomes absolute and
unconditional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the
absence of any wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the
Railway Administration is wholly immaterial, inasmuch as the said
provision expressly incorporates the doctrine of strict liability.
Consequently, the Railway Administration is held liable to compensate
irrespective of fault, thereby ensuring the legislative objective of
affording protection, relief, and just compensation to victims or their
legal representatives in cases of railway accidents or untoward
incidents.
12. At the very threshold, it becomes imperative to examine the statutory
scheme embodied under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which
unequivocally institutes a regime of strict liability on the part of the
Railway Administration. The provision stipulates that where the death
of, or injury to, a passenger results from an "untoward incident"
occurring in the course of railway operations, the Railway
Administration is mandatorily bound to pay compensation, irrespective
of any negligence, wrongful act, or default on its part. Such liability is,
however, subject only to the specific exceptions expressly carved out in
the proviso to the said section. The legislative intent underlying Section
124A is thus to impose an absolute statutory liability upon the
Railways, designed to ensure social welfare and to provide protection
and just compensation to passengers or their legal representatives in the
event of unforeseen and untoward incidents during the course of
railway travel.
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that in cases involving
untoward incidents, particularly where the activity in question is
carried out under the control or supervision of a statutory authority
such as the Railway Administration in the present case, the principle of
strict liability stands squarely attracted. The Central Government, acting
through the Railway Administration, has thus rightly been fastened
with the statutory obligation to compensate victims of such incidents.
The doctrine of strict liability, as evolved and firmly entrenched in
Indian jurisprudence, applies with full force to statutory undertakings
engaged in activities affecting public safety and welfare. This ensures
that victims or their dependents receive timely and just compensation,
consistent with the constitutional ethos embodied in Articles 38 and
39A of the Constitution of India, which enjoin the State to promote
social justice, equality, and protection for all citizens.
14. On the issue of bona fide passengership, this Court finds that the
Learned Tribunal erred in placing undue and exclusive reliance upon
the non-recovery of the journey ticket during the inquest proceedings
and in holding that the ticket subsequently produced by the claimant
was a fabricated document. Upon careful scrutiny of the record, this
Court is satisfied that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger, as
the journey ticket was duly produced by the Appellants and has not
been effectively rebutted by the Respondents. It is a settled position of
law that once the claimant establishes, even prima facie, the status of the
deceased as a bona fide passenger, the burden shifts upon the Railway
Administration to disprove the same by leading cogent evidence. In this
regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Doli
Rani Saha v. Union of India3, wherein it was held that the initial burden
upon the claimant may be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant
facts, and thereafter, the onus lies upon the Railways to rebut such
evidence. The Court further observed that the mere non-recovery of a
journey ticket at the time of inquest, by itself, cannot be treated as
conclusive proof to negate the claim of bona fide passengership,
particularly in cases of accidental death arising out of untoward
incidents.
15. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union
of India v. Rina Devi4, wherein it was categorically held that Section
124A of the Railways Act, mandates the payment of compensation to
victims or their legal representatives irrespective of any wrongful act,
negligence, or fault on the part of the Railway Administration, so long
2024 INSC 603
4 (2019) 3 SCC 572
as the death or injury has resulted from an "untoward incident" as
defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the
said provision embodies a statutory regime of strict liability, intended to
secure prompt, certain, and just relief to victims of railway accidents,
without compelling them to establish negligence or fault. This
interpretation reinforces the welfare-oriented and remedial object
underlying the legislation, ensuring that the rights of passengers and
their dependents are adequately protected.
16. In the present case, the Applicants have adduced cogent and credible
evidence, including the valid journey ticket, the Inquest Report, the
Post-Mortem Report, and the Final Investigation Report, all of which
consistently record that the deceased met with his death as a result of an
accidental fall from a running train during the course of the journey.
Further, A.W.1, the wife of the deceased, has categorically deposed that
the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket prior to
commencement of travel. The Respondents, however, have failed to
produce any substantive, reliable, or corroborative material to rebut the
said evidence and have instead sought to rely upon speculative and
inferential observations contained in the DRM's inquiry report, which,
by its very nature, lacks evidentiary sanctity. Consequently, the
uncontroverted evidence on record firmly establishes the bona fide
passengership of the deceased and substantiates the Applicants'
entitlement to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act,
1989.
17. Upon a careful and comprehensive appraisal of the evidence on record,
this Court finds that the Applicants have successfully established that
the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger with a valid
journey ticket and that he accidentally fell from the running train
between Panposh and Rourkela Railway Stations. Such an occurrence
squarely falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined
under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby attracting the
operation of Section 124A of the said Act. This position has been
authoritatively affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar5, wherein it was held that the provisions
relating to compensation under the Railways Act are remedial and
welfare-oriented in nature and must, therefore, be interpreted liberally
and purposively so as to advance the object of the legislation. The Court
further cautioned against adopting a restrictive construction of the
expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train", observing
that such an approach would defeat the legislative intent and unjustly
deprive bona fide passengers or their legal heirs of their rightful
entitlement to compensation.
18. In the present case, the evidence unequivocally establishes that the
death of the deceased occurred due to an untoward incident within the
meaning of the Act, and none of the statutory exceptions contained in
the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted. The death was not the result
of any felonious, intoxicated, or suicidal act on the part of the deceased.
(2008) 9 SCC 527
There is no material on record to suggest that he intended to cause self-
harm or was engaged in any act constituting an offence. Being a bona
fide passenger at the relevant time, the deceased squarely falls within
the protective ambit of the statute. Consequently, the claim under
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 is held to be maintainable, and
the Railway Administration is statutorily liable to compensate,
irrespective of fault or negligence.
VI. CONCLUSION:
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the materials placed on record,
this Court is satisfied that the Appellants have successfully 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. The
evidence adduced by the Appellants, being cogent and credible, clearly
demonstrates that none of the statutory exceptions enumerated in the
proviso to Section 124A stand attracted in the present case.
Consequently, the liability of the Railway Administration to pay
compensation under the said provision stands established.
20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2021,
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original
Application No.296 of 2017, is hereby set aside. The Respondent-
Railway Administration is directed to pay to the Appellants the
statutory compensation, together with interest as admissible under law,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this
judgment. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
21. Accordingly, this Court directs the Respondent-Union of India
(Railways) to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the
Appellants towards compensation under Section 124A of the Railways
Act, 1989. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim application u5ntil
the date of actual payment. The Respondent-Railways shall deposit the
aforesaid amount before the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall ensure
disbursement of the compensation amount to the Appellants in
accordance with law and after proper verification of their identity.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th October, 2025/
