Orissa High Court
Nabanita Das & Anr vs Union Of India on 31 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: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No. 553 of 2020
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987).
Nabanita Das & Anr. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (S) : Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
On behalf of
Dhananjaya Mund, Adv
For Respondent : Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-15.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order
dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
in Case No.283 of 2016 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) On 9.10.2016, the deceased Anup Das was travelling from
Khadagpur to Jajpur on the strength of valid journey ticket
purchased from Khadagpur Railway Station by the Howrah-
Chennai Express Train.
(ii) The Appellants submit that during the course of the journey, the
compartment in which the deceased was travelling was
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, fell from the running
train in Platform No.1 at Jajpur Road, as a result he was
succumbed with injuries and died on the spot.
(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 283
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 death of the deceased in the untoward incident.
(iv) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal
framed five issues for consideration and upon, detailed
examination, concluded that the victim is not a bona fide
passenger nor victim of any untoward incident. The claim
application was accordingly dismissed.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020
passed in the Original Application No. 15 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 against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers
from mis-appreciation of the material facts, and 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 issued by the Police authorities, unequivocally
demonstrate the deceased met with death as a direct consequence of
an untoward incident occurring in the course of the journey.
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 of the Investigating Agency, together with the Post-
Mortem report and Inquest Proceedings, conclusively establish the
death of the deceased occurred as a direct consequence of a fall from
the running train during the course of his journey. The
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 Respondents-Railways to
controvert or rebut the said findings, and hence the same stand
unrebutted and uncontroverted on record.
(v) 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 case 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 craved 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.
(vi) In view of 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 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 are envisaged under
Section 124A of the said Act.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the
following submissions:
(i) In cases arising out of alleged "untoward incidents", the initial
evidentiary burden indubitably rests upon the claimant to
establish the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory
presumption of accidental causation contemplated under Section
124A of the Act. In the instant case, the Appellants have, however,
failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. The surrounding
circumstances, when objectively assessed in the light of the
available record, do not lend credence to the theory of an
accidental fall from a running train; rather they unmistakably
point towards a self-inflicted act culminating in a suicidal run-
over. Such conduct squarely falls within the exceptions expressly
engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A of the Act and thereby
excludes the operation of the principle of strict or no-fault liability
otherwise attaching to the Railway Administration under the
statutory scheme. Consequently, the claim petition, being devoid
of merit, stands rightly dismissed, as no vicarious or statutory
liability can, in law, be fastened upon the Respondent-Railway in
relation to the incident in question.
(ii) The Tribunal, upon a meticulous appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has rightly disbelieved
the testimony, observing that his deposition appeared to be
actuated by self-interest and guided by an ulterior motive to
secure compensation under the guise of an "untoward incident".
The material inconsistencies, embellishments, and contradictions
discernible in his testimony, when juxtaposed with the
surrounding circumstances and absence of any credible
independent corroboration, clearly detract from its probative
worth. The Tribunal, therefore, was fully justified in holding that
such evidence, being tainted by mala fides and coloured by
pecuniary inducement rather that veracity, could not be accorded
any evidentiary sanctity in the adjudication of the claim.
(iii) The Appellants have failed to establish that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. The absence of
primary evidence to substantiate bona fide passengership renders
the claim inherently doubtful and indicative of an attempt to
fabricate a case for compensation. In the absence of cogent and
admissible proof fulfilling the essential precondition under
Section 124A of the Act, the statutory liability of the Respondent-
Railways cannot be invoked. Accordingly, the claim is devoid of
merit and liable to dismissal.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while dismissing the claim
application, recoded the following key observations and conclusions:
6. 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. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be
sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased.
7. The Tribunal observed that the initial burden lay upon the applicants to
establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death
resulted from an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section
123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. The Tribunal further noted that there is an absence of any eyewitness or
co-passenger testimony to substantiate the claim that the deceased fell
from the running train. The body of the deceased was found on the
middle of the track. Hence, this lack of direct evidence seriously
undermines the assertion that the death occurred due to an accident
during the course of travel.
9. The Tribunal held that such circumstances, as they stand, do not
demonstrate the accidental fall from the train, and therefore, the
occurrence was not an "untoward incident". Since establishing such an
incident is a sine qua non for claiming compensation under Section
124A, this essential requirement remains unfulfilled. And consequently,
the Railways are protected under the exception clause of Section 124A
of the Act.
10. 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. The
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.
11. The medical opinion expressed in the post-mortem, noted that the
deceased died from shock and haemorrhage due to injury to both upper limbs
and left foot, with 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 Act was rightly rejected.
12. 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:
13. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
14. 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?
c. whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of
liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
15. This Court observed that once the primary facts, namely, the death of a
passenger in an "untoward incident" and that such passenger was
a bona fide passenger, stood established, the liability of the Railway
Administration became absolute. The Court further emphasised that the
absence of any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the
Railway Administration was of no consequence, inasmuch as the
provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act embody the principle of
strict liability.
16. The Learned Tribunal rejected the deceased's status as a bona fide
passenger on the ground that no ticket or travel bag was recovered and
no oral evidence was led by the Appellants. However, in Union of India
v. Rina Devi1, the Supreme Court categorically held that the non-
recovery of a ticket is not conclusive in cases of accidental death
involving passengers. The Court accepted that tickets are often lost in
such incidents and permitted circumstantial and documentary evidence
to establish passengership.
17. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section
124A of the Railways Act, 1989, enacts a regime of strict liability. The
provision stipulates that once it is established that the death or injury
has occurred as a result of an "untoward incident", the Railway
Administration is bound to pay compensation, irrespective of any
negligence or default on its part, unless the case falls within the specific
exceptions craved out in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act.
18. In the present case, the inquest report, post-mortem report, and the final
police report consistently record that the deceased died due to fall from
a running train. No evidence was led by the Railways to rebut this
(2019) 3 SCC 572
version or to show that the deceased was a trespasser or not booked for
travel. Thus, in absence of contrary evidence, and keeping in mind the
principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra), the deceased is entitled to be
treated as a bona fide passenger. The Respondents, on the other hand,
failed to adduce any cogent material to rebut such evidence, and sought
instead to rely upon speculative observations made in the DRM's
inquiry.
19. Upon weighing the evidence on record, the Court finds that the
applicants have adduced sufficient material to establish that the
deceased was travelling on a valid journey ticket and that he
accidentally fell from the train in Jajpur Road Railway Station. Such an
occurrence clearly falls within the ambit of "untoward incident" as
defined under Section 123(c) and does not dislodge the claim within the
framework of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
20. This position stands fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar2,
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 further 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
(2008) 9 SCC 527
deprive a large number of bona fide railway passengers of their rightful
claim to compensation in railway accidents.
21. In the 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 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.
22. The underlying object of the statutory scheme is to ensure prompt and
equitable compensation to the victims of railway accidents, rather than
to entangle them in protracted proceedings of fault-finding or
negligence. The denial of relief by the Learned Tribunal runs counter to
these settle principles. In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing
the applicability of the statutory exceptions, the death of a bona fide
passenger on account of a fall from a train squarely fastens statutory
liability upon the Respondents-Railways to pay compensation and are
accordingly liable to be set aside. It is a settled position of law that once
the claimant establishes, even prima facie, the status of the deceased
bona fide passenger, the burden shifts upon the Railway Administration
to disprove the same by leading cogent evidence.
23. 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-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 accidental death arising out of untoward incidents.
24. In the instant case, the evidence unequivocally establishes that the death
of the deceased occurred due to ambit of an "untoward incident" and
none of the statutory exceptions to liability enumerated under the
proviso to Section 124A stand attracted. 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 application is maintainable in law, and the
Railway Administration is statutorily liable to compensate, irrespective
of fault or negligence.
VI. CONCLUSION:
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion and material placed on record,
this Court is satisfied that the appellants have 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)
2024 INSC 603
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.
26. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2020,
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original
Application No. 283 of 2016 is hereby set aside.
27. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
28. 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 disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law.
29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 31st October, 2025/
