Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... 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
FAO No. 62 of 2020
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,
1987)
S. Narayan Reddy .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Smt. Sulochana Patra, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-03.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The appellant in the present appeal is challenging the order dated
03.10.2019 passed in O.A. 251 of 2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 03.06.2014, the deceased was traveling from Berhampur to Rambha
by Train No. 58418, Gunupur-Puri Passenger, in a fully crowded
general compartment.
(ii) After passing Chhatrapur Railway Station, the deceased proceeded
towards the gate to ascertain the station being passed. At that moment,
the train experienced a sudden jerk, causing the deceased to
accidentally fall from the moving train between Ganjam and Huma
Railway Stations at K.M. 566/40. The injuries sustained were grievous,
and the deceased succumbed to the same on the spot. The Railway
Police seized the body and conducted an inquest, registering Crime No.
471/2014 on 04.06.2014.
(iii) The body was sent for post-mortem at MKCG Medical College Hospital,
Berhampur. The post-mortem report concluded that the injuries were
ante-mortem and consistent with being run over by a train.
(iv) Upon investigation, the police submitted a final report attributing the
death to an accidental fall from the moving train, with no suspicion of
foul play.
(v) The Appellants subsequently filed Original Application No. 251/2014
before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses,
together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(vi) The Tribunal, by its order dated 03.10.2019, dismissed the claim on the
ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that there
was no proof of travel on the date in question.
(vii) Aggrieved by the said order, 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 submitted that the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2019
passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law,
and therefore liable to be set aside.
(ii) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider
that the deceased was traveling in an overcrowded train, which
experienced severe jerks at frequent intervals, and as a result, the
deceased accidentally fell from the moving train, constituting an
untoward incident for which the Appellants are entitled to
compensation.
(iii) The appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal ignored the Final
Report of the police, which clearly declares that the cause of death of the
deceased was an accidental fall from the running train during the
journey from Berhampur to Rambha by Train No. 58418, Gunupur-Puri
Passenger on 03.06.2014.
(iv) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the
examination-in-chief of S. Narayan Reddy, who deposed that while her
mother was traveling from Berhampur to Rambha on the said train, the
train was fully crowded. After passing Chhatrapur Railway Station, the
deceased approached the gate to ascertain the station being passed. At
that moment, the train jerked severely, causing the deceased to fall
between Ganjam and Huma Railway Stations at K.M. 566/40, sustaining
grievous injuries and succumbing on the spot.
(v) While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal failed to
consider that, according to the examination-in-chief of S. Narasinghulu
Dora, on 03.06.2014, he purchased a ticket for the deceased in the
Gunupur-Puri Passenger from Berhampur Railway Station to Gunupur
Railway Station, and also arranged a seat for the deceased, duly
informing the Appellant of her journey.
(vi) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
that the final police report clearly indicates that the injuries sustained
by the deceased are consistent with an accidental fall from the moving
train, establishing that the death resulted from a railway accident.
(vii) The appellant submitted that it is clear from the evidence that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and therefore entitled to
compensation.
(viii) The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to
properly consider the evidence and documents on record, which clearly
establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; on this basis, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The judgment dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar is just and proper.
(ii) The appellants have not proved any negligence on the part of the
respondent that caused the death of the deceased on 03.06.2014.
(iii) Admittedly, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and no ticket
was recovered from her. The appellants have not produced any
eyewitnesses or documents essential to establish their case.
(iv) There is no illegality or error committed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while passing the impugned judgment.
(v) The deceased fell while boarding the running train due to her own
negligence. Accordingly, no untoward incident as defined under the
Railway Act occurred, and the appellants are not entitled to
compensation.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
5. The Tribunal heard learned counsel for the parties and framed the
following issues for determination:
a. Whether the death of the deceased was due to an
accidental fall as defined under Section 123(c)(2)
of the Railways Act, 1989?
b. Whether the deceased was traveling as a bona
fide passenger at the time of the alleged untoward
incident?
c. Whether the respondent railway administration
is protected u/s 124-A of the Railways Act and is
not liable to pay any compensation to the
applicants?
d. Whether the applicant is the dependent of the
deceased to receive compensation as claimed.
e. To what relief the applicant is entitled to?
6. On consideration of the pleadings, documents, inquest report, and post-
mortem report, the Tribunal observed that no journey ticket was
recovered from the deceased, and the applicant did not provide any
plausible explanation or eye witness to establish that the deceased was
a bona fide passenger.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the deceased could not be
considered a bona fide passenger. The body of the deceased was found
in two pieces at KM No. 566/40, between Ganjam and Huma Railway
Stations, with one portion on the track and the other outside. The
Tribunal observed that such injuries are consistent only with being run
over or suicide. An accidental fall due to train jerks would not normally
result in such severance.
8. In view of these findings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no
direct evidence to indicate that the death resulted from an untoward
incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
9. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim application, finding it
devoid of merit, and held that the applicant was not entitled to any
compensation. The application was disposed of accordingly.
V. THE COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
11. The principal question arising for consideration is whether the Tribunal
was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger
and that her death did not constitute an "untoward incident" within the
meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, 1989.
12. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, imposes strict liability on the
Railway Administration to pay compensation to passengers or their
dependents in the event of an untoward incident, subject only to the
exceptions enumerated therein. These exceptions include death or
injury arising from suicide, self-inflicted acts, criminal acts of the
passenger, acts committed in a state of intoxication or insanity, or death
from natural causes or medical treatment.
13. It is well-settled that under Section 124-A, the Railway Administration
is liable to pay compensation even in the absence of fault or negligence
on its part. While the absence of a journey ticket is relevant, it is not
determinative of the status of a bona fide passenger. Once the appellants
disclose material facts regarding the journey, the burden shifts to the
Railway Administration to prove that the statutory exceptions apply or
that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. This principle was laid
down in Union of India v. Rina Devi1 and was reiterated in Kamukayi
v. Union of India2.
14. In the present case, the appellants have placed on record sufficient
material to demonstrate that the deceased was traveling on Train No.
58418, Gunupur-Puri Passenger, from Berhampur to Rambha on
03.06.2014. The appellants have produced the evidence of S.
Narasinghulu Dora, who purchased a ticket for the deceased and
arranged a seat, and of S. Narayan Reddy, who detailed the
circumstances of the accident. The final police report also records that
the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with an
accidental fall from the moving train.
15. The Railway Administration, in response, has relied primarily on the
non-recovery of a ticket and the nature of injuries observed on the body.
The Tribunal inferred that because the body was found in two pieces,
the death could have resulted only from being run over or suicide.
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
(2023) 19 SCC 116.
However, such an inference, in the absence of any direct evidence, is
speculative and ignores the material placed by the appellants, including
the eyewitness accounts and corroborative documentary evidence
regarding the ticket and travel arrangements.
16. On a careful appraisal of the evidence, the Court finds that the
appellants have discharged their initial burden of establishing that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the incident occurred
while she was traveling. The Railway Administration has failed to
demonstrate that any of the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A
are applicable. The mere absence of a ticket at the time of the accident
cannot outweigh the other evidence establishing the deceased's status
as a bona fide passenger.
17. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's conclusion that the deceased was
not a bona fide passenger and that her death did not constitute an
untoward incident is vitiated by an erroneous appreciation of law and
facts. The findings of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
VI. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a comprehensive
appraisal of the evidence, this Court is persuaded to hold that the
appellant was entitled to the statutory presumption in his favor, and the
Railway Administration has failed to rebut it. The impugned order
dismissing the claim application is, therefore, unsustainable.
19. The impugned judgement/order is set aside, and the appellant is held
entitled to statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs
only), together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application until the date of actual realization.
20. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th October, 2025
