Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... 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: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 508 of 2024
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,
1987.)
Sarojini @ Sajani Palai & .... Appellant (s)
Ors.
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amiya Ku. Mohanty, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Sephalee Das, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-21.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The appellants in the present appeal are assailing the award dated
15.07.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,
in O.A. No. 67 of 2023.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 19.07.2017, the deceased boarded Train No. 56264 K.S.R.S.B.C.
Mysore at Bangalore Railway Station after purchasing a ticket for his
journey.
(ii) While travelling on the said train, on the night of 20.07.2017, at around
01:22 to 01:30 a.m., the deceased allegedly fell from the running train
between Kengeri and Hejjala Railway Stations due to a sudden jerk.
As a result, he sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the same
on the spot.
(iii) The Bangalore City Railway Police Station registered a UDR Case No.
117/2017 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
in relation to the said incident.
(iv) The widow, son and daughter of the deceased thereafter filed a claim
application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,
seeking compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989.
(v) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed five issues for
adjudication. Upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence
on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger and that the incident did not fall within the definition of an
'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.
(vi) Aggrieved by the award dated 15.07.2024 passed in O.A. No. 67 of
2023 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking this Court's
intervention.
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 impugned judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, is illegal, against the weight of evidence
and liable to be set aside.
(ii) The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of A.W.2, who
categorically stated that he had purchased two tickets, one for the
deceased and one for his friend Ramesh and had helped the deceased to
board Train No. 56264 (K.S.R.S.B.C. Mysore) at Bangalore Railway
Station for travel to Hejjala. A.W.2 also affirmed this in his affidavit and
deposition. Further, A.W.3, who was a co-passenger of the deceased and
travelled up to the previous station, corroborated A.W.2's testimony.
(iii) The post-mortem report recorded that the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries which normally occur
when a person falls from a running train. The Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the
journey ticket was lost along with his bag during the incident.
(iv) The Tribunal erred in disregarding the evidence of A.W.2 and A.W.3
merely on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the claim
application. Such an omission is procedural in nature and does not affect
the merits of the case. The Tribunal ought to have considered their
consistent and credible testimonies in the interest of justice.
(v) The Tribunal failed to appreciate that both A.W.2 and A.W.3 gave
consistent, corroborated and credible statements supported by medical
evidence which clearly indicated injuries caused by a fall from a running
train. These materials established that the incident was an untoward
incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
Hence, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law.
(vi) The respondents did not examine either the driver or the guard of the
train nor produced any evidence to bring the case within any of the
exceptions (a) to (e) under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The
absence of such evidence renders the finding of the Tribunal perverse
and unsustainable.
(vii) It is a settled principle of law that the mere non-recovery of a journey
ticket from the body of the deceased cannot lead to the conclusion that
he was travelling without a ticket. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that,
as per the evidence, the ticket and the bag of the deceased were lost in
the fall.
(viii) The appellants have discharged their burden by leading cogent and
reliable evidence to establish that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and that the death occurred in an 'untoward incident'. The
respondent Railway failed to rebut such evidence.
(ix) The burden of proof lies on the Railway administration to establish that
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and not on the claimants to
prove the contrary. The Tribunal's observation that the appellants failed
to prove bona fide travel is based on conjecture and surmise and is
therefore 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 allegations of the appellants are based on conjecture and surmise.
In the absence of any eye-witness and considering the findings in the
final report of the Railway Police Sub-Inspector and the inquest report,
it is evident that the deceased was knocked down by a train while
crossing the track. Therefore, the incident does not fall within the
definition of an 'untoward incident' under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989.
(ii) There is no concrete evidence to infer that the death of the deceased
occurred in the course of railway travel in the Divisional Railway
Manager's statutory investigation report and other relevant accident
documents.
(iii) The inquest report and final report clearly indicate that the deceased was
knocked down while crossing the railway track negligently. Hence, the
deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger, and the incident
cannot be construed as an untoward incident as defined under Section
123(c) of the Railways Act.
(iv) The learned Tribunal rightly held that this was not a case of accidental
fall from a running train but rather a case falling under the exceptions
enumerated under Section 124-A(a) to (c) of the Railways Act, and
accordingly dismissed the claim. The award of the learned Tribunal is
based on proper appreciation of evidence and law, and the present
appeal does not warrant interference.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, upon hearing the
parties and perusing the record, framed five issues for determination,
primarily to ascertain whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger,
whether his death resulted from an untoward incident as defined under
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the applicants
were entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Act.
6. It was observed that although the applicants claimed the deceased
accidentally fell from a running train while travelling from Bangalore to
Hejjala, there was no concrete evidence to substantiate that he was a
bona fide passenger or that such an untoward incident had occurred. No
journey ticket was recovered from the deceased during inquest, and the
claim that the ticket had been lost in the alleged incident was not
supported by any corroborative evidence.
7. The Tribunal noted serious inconsistencies between the pleadings and
the evidence of the witnesses who claimed to have purchased the ticket
and travelled with the deceased. Their names were not mentioned in the
original claim application, nor was any such assertion made earlier. The
Tribunal, relying on the settled principle that evidence beyond
pleadings cannot be considered, held their testimony to be an
afterthought and legally untenable.
8. On the basis of the inquest report, final report of the Railway Police, and
the DRM's statutory investigation report, the Tribunal concluded that
the deceased was knocked down by a train while crossing the railway
track negligently and was not a victim of accidental fall from a running
train. It therefore held that the case fell within the exceptions provided
under Section 124-A(a) to (c) of the Railways Act.
9. The Tribunal found that there was a complete lack of cogent or tangible
evidence to establish that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide
passenger or that his death was caused by an untoward incident during
railway travel. Consequently, the applicants were held not entitled to
compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
10. In view of these findings, the Tribunal accordingly dismissed the claim
application.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
12. Under the Railways Act, 1989, a clear framework governing the Railway
Administration's liability in cases of accidental falling from train has
been laid out.
13. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, delineate the Railway
Administration's liability to pay compensation for death or injury
arising out of railway accidents. While Section 124 applies to accidents
involving trains carrying passengers, Section 124-A extends this liability
to "untoward incidents" as defined in Section 123(c), which include the
accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.
14. These provisions create a regime of strict or no-fault liability. Once an
untoward incident involving a bona fide passenger is established, the
Railway Administration is liable to pay statutory compensation
irrespective of negligence, except in the limited situations enumerated
in the proviso to Section 124-A, namely, suicide or attempted suicide,
self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or insanity, or death from
natural causes or disease.
15. This framework reflects a deliberate legislative policy that recognises the
inherent imbalance between the Railway Administration and the
travelling public and accordingly shifts the focus from fault-based to
welfare-based liability. By dispensing with the burden of proving
negligence, which is often impracticable in such cases, the law ensures
that victims of railway accidents or their dependents are not left without
a remedy. The threshold for compensation is therefore confined to
establishing that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death
or injury arose out of an "untoward incident," unless the case falls
within the narrowly defined exceptions in the proviso to Section 124-A.
16. This regime of no-fault liability has been reaffirmed in a host of judicial
decisions, including Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1
wherein the Supreme Court outlined the evolution of the principle of
strict or no fault liability and its applicability under Section 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989.
17. On the issue of non-recovery of a journey ticket, the legal position is now
well settled. The mere non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot, by itself,
be treated as conclusive proof that the deceased was not a bona fide
traveller.
18. In Union of India v. Rina Devi2, the Supreme Court clarified that the
mere non-recovery of a journey ticket does not establish that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Court recognised that in
railway accidents, tickets are often lost, destroyed, or misplaced due to
the impact of the incident or during the process of rescue,
hospitalisation, or police handling. Consequently, the absence of a ticket
cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive against the claimant. The status
of the deceased as a bona fide passenger may instead be inferred from
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
(2019) 3 SCC 572.
surrounding circumstances and corroborative material such as
eyewitness accounts, the FIR, inquest report, or post-mortem report.
19. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal recorded that the
deceased, Bina Palai, was not a bona fide passenger, primarily on the
grounds that no journey ticket was recovered from his possession and
that AW2 and AW3 were not disclosed in the original claim application.
On this basis, the Tribunal held that the incident did not fall within the
ambit of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways
Act, 1989, and dismissed the claim.
20. The Tribunal appears to have overlooked material aspects of the
evidence while arriving at this conclusion. The affidavit of AW2 states
that he had purchased one ticket for the deceased and one for his friend
Ramesh. Further, the affidavit of AW3 and his deposition indicates that
he was the co-passenger with the deceased.
21. The initial burden rests on the claimant to establish the relevant facts,
which may be discharged through an affidavit or other supporting
material and thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railway to disprove
such status based on the attending circumstances. As the affidavits of
AW2 and AW3 clearly indicate that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger who was travelling with a valid ticket, the burden shifted on
to the Railway to rebut the same.
22. The respondent Railway had relied on the absence of a ticket to contend
that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and the Tribunal
accepted this contention. However, on a perusal of the record, this Court
is of the view that the Railways failed to discharge this burden. The mere
non-recovery of ticket and absence of eye-witnesses does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling
without a valid ticket. The Tribunal, in treating the absence of a ticket as
decisive and disregarding consistent corroborative evidence, erred both
in law and on facts.
23. It is further observed that the post-mortem examination records
multiple injuries consistent with a fall from a moving train, and the
doctor has opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage
resulting from such injuries. The FIR and inquest report, prepared
proximate to the occurrence, record circumstances consistent with the
applicants' version of events.
24. CONCLUSION:
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Tribunal's
finding suffers from misappreciation of material evidence and an
erroneous application of the settled legal principles governing
compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
26. The evidence on record, read as a whole, establishes 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.
27. As the liability imposed under the Railways Act, 1989 is in the nature of
strict liability, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation
in absence of credible evidence demonstrating that the present case falls
in the ambit of one of the exceptions enumerated in (a) to (e) under
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal
is set aside.
29. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees
eight lakh only) under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, read
with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal until
realisation.
30. Any interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 31st October, 2025
