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. 100 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Biswajit Pradhan. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India, represented through .... Respondent(s)
its General Manager, East Coast
Railway, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv.
For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and
order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar in case No. O.A.(IIU)/94/2007, 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 20.09.2013, the injured in person, Tutu Pradhan @ Pintu
Pradhan, a bona fide passenger and holder of a valid journey
ticket, was travelling by the Puri- Khurda KP2 Passenger Train
from Puri to Khurda Road 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 Claimant lost balance and
accidentally fell from the running train between Puri and Motari
Station,and in consequence thereof, sustained grievous bodily
injuries and sustained fracture injuries on his right leg below the
knee.
(iii) The appellants thereafter filed Original Application No. 94 of
2007 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) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in the Original
Application, the appellant preferred an appeal before this
Hon'ble Court bearing F.A.O. No. 82 of 2014. The Hon'ble Court,
by its judgment dated 20.12.2019, set aside the impugned
judgment of the Learned Tribunal and remitted the matter for
reconsideration, directing the Tribunal to complete the exercise
regarding thebgrant of compensation in accordance with law.
(vi) Thereafter, pursuant to theremand, both the Appellant and
Respondent appeared before the Learned Tribunal. Upon
consideration, the Ld. Tribunal allowed the award of RS 80,000/-
on 24.08.2020. and directed the Respondent to deposit the said
amount within 30 days from the date of the communication of
the award.
(vii) Being aggrieved by award dated 24.08.2020 passed in O.A.No. 94
of 2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the
Appellants preferred the present Appeal before this Court.
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 Learned Tribunal failed to duly
appreciate and analyse the evidence adduced on their behalf.
Further, without giving due consideration to the nature and extent
of the injuries sustained, the Learned Tribunal passed the
impugned award, which is manifestly inconsistent with the
Schedule of Compensation for death and injuries as prescribed
under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 2017. In view of the
foregoing, it is submitted that the impugned award is liable to be
suitably enhanced.
(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
claimant has 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, upon a reasoned and comprehensive
appreciationof the evidentiary record, rightly disbelieved the
testimony of the Appellant, holding that the injuries sustained
were attributable to his own rash and negligent conduct, and
accordingly dismissed the claim application. However, being
dissatisfied with the said adjudication, the claimant preferred a
petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, wherein the
Hon'ble Bench was pleased to set aside the impugned order and
remit the matter to the Learned Tribunal with a direction to
undertake the exercise afresh for determination and grant of just
and appropriate compensation to the claimant.
(iv) The Respondents further submitted that the nature of the injury
sustained by the claimant, being a compound fracture in one of
the legs, squarely falls under Entry No. 33 of Part III of the
Schedule of Compensation for death and injuries as prescribed
under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 2017. Accordingly, the
compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal is
commensurate with the extent of disability and injury suffered
by the claimant.
(v) 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
establish that 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.
7. 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.
8. The Learned Tribunal, upon a meticulous and reasoned appraisal of
the entire evidentiary corpus, found the testimony of the Appellant to
be unworthy of credence and rightly concluded that the injuries
sustained were a consequence of his own rash and negligent conduct.
Consequently, the claim application came to be dismissed. However,
being aggrieved by the said adjudication, the claimant invoked the
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, wherein the Hon'ble
Bench, upon due consideration, was pleased to set aside the impugned
order and remand the matter to the Learned Tribunal with a direction
to undertake a fresh exercise for the determination and award of just,
fair, and reasonable compensation in accordance with law.
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 Learned Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous
premise that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted
and not the result of an accidental fall from a running train. Proceeding
on such reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that the occurrence did not
amount to an "untoward incident" within the contemplation of Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and consequently held the
Appellant to be unworthy of credence, attributing the injuries to his
own rash and negligent conduct. As a corollary, the claim application
was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said adjudication, the claimant
invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa,
wherein the Hon'ble Bench, upon an elaborate consideration of the
materials on record, was pleased to set aside the impugned order and
remit the matter to the Learned Tribunal with a direction to undertake
a de novo determination for the assessment and award of just, fair, and
reasonable compensation in accordance with law.
17.Upon a meticulous and comprehensive reappraisal of the entire
evidentiary record, this Court is satisfied that the bona fide
passengership of the Appellant stands duly established and is no
longer in dispute. However, it is observed that the award rendered by
the Learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the governing legal
principles and the statutory framework. In the present case, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, and the medical
evidence on record indicates that the permanent physical disability has
been assessed at 40%. In such circumstances, the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal appears manifestly on
the lower side and warrants appropriate enhancement in the interest of
justice.
18.In the present case, 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.
19.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that, in terms of the
Schedule appended to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990, the claimant is entitled to be awarded
compensation commensurate with the nature and extent of disability
sustained, as duly established by the medical evidence on record.
VI. CONCLUSION:
20.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
Act, 1989. None of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to
Section 124A are attracted.
21.The impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 94
of 2007 are set aside.
22.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
23.The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one
lakhs sixty thousand) 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.
24.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th October, 2025/
