Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 9182 Ori

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 18:58:02




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                F.A.O No. 141 of 2020
        (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
        Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
        Dipak Sahoo                                 ....               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:-09.10.2025
                     DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and order

dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

Bench, Bhubaneswar in Case No. O.A.(IIU)/235/2016, which dismissed

the claim application for compensation arising out of the injury 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)     On 22.07.2016, the injured in person, Dipak Sahoo, a bona fide

passenger and holder of a valid journey ticket, was travelling by

theHowrah-Vasco-Da-Gama Express from Cuttack to Vasco-Da-

Gama Railway Station.

(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 Anakapalle and

Bayyavaram Railway, and in consequence thereof, sustained

grievous bodily injuries.

(iii) The appellants thereafter filed Original Application No. 235 of

2016 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 injury sustained by the Appellant, 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 Appellant was not a bona fide passenger

and not a victim of any untoward incident. Accordingly, the

claim application was dismissed.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020

passed in the Original Application No. 235 of 2016 by the

Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellant has

preferred the present appeal.

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 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 injury of the Appellant is

erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record, and suffers from

gross misappreciation of material facts and legal provisions.

(ii) The Tribunal did not dispute the authenticity or genuineness of the

Railway Journey Ticket produced by the injured, nor did the

Respondent lead any contra evidence to discredit the same. The

Tribunal however, proceeded on the premise that the injuries

sustained by Appellant were self-inflicted injury, thereby

disentitling him to compensation.

(iii) The Appellants contended that the documentary evidence issued

by the Police Authorities unequivocally establishes that the

Appellant had sustained injuries as a consequence of an untoward

incident, occurring in the course of a bona fide train journey. It was

argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate or to take judicial

notice of these vital and corroborative evidentiary materials, which

lent credence to the Appellant's case. The rejection of the claim on

the ground that the injuries were self-inflictedand thus fell within

the exceptions enumerated under Section 124A of the Railways Act,

1989, was asserted to be erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in

law.

(iv) Section 124A of the Railways Act, being a beneficial and welfare

legislation imposes a strict and statutory liability on the Railways to

compensate the Appellants, unless the case falls within the express

statutory exceptions, none of which are applicable here. Once the

injuries results from an untoward incident occurring in the course

of railway travel, the liability of the Railways to pay compensation

arises ipso facto and automatically. So, the Tribunal's contrary

finding is perverse, contrary to the legislative intent.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

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

following submissions:

(i) In cases of untoward incidents, the initial burden of establishing

the claim lies upon the claimant. In the present matter, the

Appellanthas failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. From

the circumstances surrounding the alleged injury, it does not

appear to be a case of accidental fall from a running train but

indicates a self-inflicted injury. Such conduct falls within the

exceptions contemplated under Section 124A of the Railways Act,

1989, and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the

Respondents.

(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 injury. Such

conduct, being ex facie subsumed within the exclusionary ambit 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.

(iii) The Tribunal has upon reasoned appreciation of the evidentiary

record, rightly disbelieved the testimony of the Appellant, holding

that the injuries sustained were the result of his own rash and

negligent conduct. It was observed that the Appellant had been

travelling on the footboard of the coach, which is an inherently

unsafe and prohibited place to travel. The occurrence being a direct

consequence of the Appellant's own fault and criminal negligence,

the Respondents- Railways cannot be held liable for the same.

iv. 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 Appellant's 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 statutory liability

under Section 124A 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 of proof rested upon the applicantto

establishthat the Appellant was a bona fide passenger and that

theinjuries sustained were the result of an "untoward incident" within

the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Upon due

appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal recorded that the journey ticket

had indeed been produced and not disputed bythe Respondents,

thereby establishing the bona fide passenger status of the Appellant.

7. The Tribunal further stated that the injuries sustained by the Appellant

were attributable to his own rash and negligent conduct. It was

observed that the Appellant had been travelling on the footboard of the

coach, an act which is inherently unsafe, impermissible, and fraught

with danger. The Tribunal concluded that the occurrence was the

direct and proximate consequence of the Appellant's own fault and

criminal negligence, thereby disentitling him to any compensation

under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances of the case clearly indicated

that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, and not

the result of an accidental fall from the train. Consequently, the

occurrence did not constitute an "untoward incident" within the ambit

of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal observed

that the sine qua non for invoking Section 124A, namely, proof of an

untoward incident during the course of a bona fide journey, had not

been established. It was therefore concluded that the injury was

attributed to the Appellant's own fault, and the Railways stood

protected under the exception clause 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. This Court observed that once the primary facts, namely, the

occurrence of an "untoward incident" resulting in the injury of a bona

fide passenger, are duly established, the liability of the Railway

Administration becomes absolute under Section 124A of the Railways

Act, 1989. The Court held that the absence of any wrongful act,

negligence, or default on the part of the Railway Administration is

irrelevant, as the statutory provision enshrines the doctrine of strict

liability. Accordingly, once the criteria under Section 124A are met, the

Railway is statutorily bound to compensate, irrespective of fault.

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.

14. The legislative intent underlying this provision is manifestly remedial

and welfare-oriented, aimed at ensuing certainly and uniformly in

compensation for victims of railway mishaps. The liability so created is

absolute in character, admitting of exception only to the extent

expressly carved out in the proviso to Section 124A- which, being in

the nature of an exclusion clause, is to be construed narrowly and

restrictively.

15. On the issue of bona fide, this Court is constrained to observe that the

Ld. Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding with regard to the recovery

of journey ticket from the possession Appellant. However, the

conclusion drawn by the Tribunal suffers from a misdirection in law as

to the nature and extent of the claimant's evidentiary burden under

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The finding that the Appellant

was a bona fide passenger ought to have led to a corresponding

inference that the injury arose out of an untoward incident, unless

rebutted by cogent evidence falling within the statutory exceptions.

16. On the contrary, the Ld. Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the

injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, and not the

consequence of an accidental fall from the train. On such reasoning, it

held that the occurrence did not constitute an "untoward incident"

within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

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

the bona fide passengership of the Appellant stands duly established.

The medical report, official documents prepared in the ordinary course

of public duty- carry a presumption of correctness under Section 119(e)

of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, 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.

18. Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Courtin the

case of Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and Others1,

whereunder it has been held that:

"9............................... By the explanation of the said section classifying about "passenger", it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

10. This Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi2, has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises.

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railways premises will not be conclusive to hold that 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 relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on facts shown or attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with form case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

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

deceased is established through credible evidence, the claim for

(2023) 19 SCC 116 2(2019) 3 SCC 572

compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 becomes

statutorily enforceable.

20. Reliance may be placed on Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India3, wherein

it was held that the initial burden would be on claimant, which may be

discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Thereafter, the

burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.

21. In the present case, while it is undisputed that the applicants were able

to produce the valid journey ticket,the medical report unequivocally

recorded that the Appellant suffered injuries due to the accidental fall

from a running train, thereby sustaining the occurrence as an

untoward incident. Further, the Appellant, categorically deposed that

hehad purchased a valid journey ticket, and a fact was duly

corroborated by oral and documentary evidence adduced during the

proceedings. These testimonies constitute direct and reliable evidence,

reinforced by contemporaneous police ad medical records, lending

undoubted credence to the claim.

22. In contrast, the Respondents failed to bring on record any cogent or

rebuttal evidence to disprove the claim and instead relied upon

speculative and inconclusive observations made in the DRM inquiry

report, which does not carry binding evidentiary value in judicial

proceedings. Accordingly, in absence of any credible rebuttal from the

Respondents, and in view of the consistent and corroborated evidence

presented by the Appellant, status as bona fide passenger and the

(2024) 8SCR 391

occurrence of an untoward incident stand established, thereby entitling

the claimants to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act,

1989.

23. This position was firmly settled in Union of India v. Prabhakaran

Vijay Kumar4, 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 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.

24. Accordingly, the incident squarely falls within the ambit of an

"untoward incident" and none of the statutory exceptions enumerated

under the proviso of Section 124A are attracted in the present case. As

such the statutory liability of the Railway Administration stands

attracted, and the claim for compensation is legally maintainable under

the framework of strict liability provided by the Act.

VI. CONCLUSION:

25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the

appellant has established that he was a bona fide passenger and that

the injury occurred as a result of an "untoward incident" within the

meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways

(2008) 9 SCC 527

Act, 1989. None of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to

Section 124A are attracted.

26. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the

Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No.

235 of 2016 are set aside.

27. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

28. 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.

29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/